All we had to do was kick the liberal away and elect a leftist president. I wonder how low Amazon deforestation would be if the CIA didn't arrange a coup here every decade or two.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lula is more liberal than Bolsonaro in what the word actually means but otherwise good comment

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bolsonaro's Party: "Partido Liberal" = "Liberal Party"

The actual meaning of political words is relative to the current geopolitical landscape. At the moment Liberal means "I love billionaires and I hate the poor".

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Capitalists have been trying to steal the term multiple times — there is nothing liberal, liberties or freedom under the hierarchy of capitalism. Liberal is relative, and relatively speaking it's anticapitalist.

Newspeak is invented all the time. It's everyone's responsibility not to accept fake rhetoric

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The world moves, you can't use terms from 300 years ago in today's world.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Someone should really update Wikipedia, they're still in the year 1723 with this anticapitalist description

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion,[11] constitutional government, privacy rights, and regulations on the role of technology in the private and public sectors.

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wikipedia

Interesting, never visited that page so I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up, comrade.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Watch out. It could be dirty communist propaganda

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

At least it wouldn't be nazist, white supremacist propaganda.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah Bolsonaro is not a liberal, more like a wannabe fascist. And Lula is the actual neoliberal. All about the politics and platitudes and light populism. But still, the Brazilian’s private banks profited more during all of Lula’s years as president…

The truth is there can’t be a left in Brazil. The CIA would never allow it. When someone slightly left to the center (Dilma) tries to do any sensible actual social democratic idea she gets couped.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both of them are liberals, but one is on the center the other is a fascist, one does not preclude the other.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Ofc, I think I do say that no?

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Neoliberal, lula, now that's going waaaaay too far.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How different was he from Labour in the UK during Blair’s years? Or the Democratic Party in the US?

Populism with policies that benefit the big banks and corporations. Band-aid fixes for the poor so they stop complaining. Funnelling wealth into the uber-rich.

Why was the capitalist class in Brazil perfectly content during the first Lula years? They only rebelled under Dilma.

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For reference, where are you from? I'm Brazilian and Lula regularly gets "accused" of being a communist, we also have an openly communist Defense Minister. Lula implemented many communist policies like strong wealth redistribution, food and housing for the poor, etc etc etc.

Sadly, our country is still ran by the rich, it's a fake democracy and Lula is forced to give them gifts otherwise he can't govern. Just the other day we had a 'crisis' with our Congress President refusing to vote any government laws because the elites weren't getting enough money, he called "articulation". Lula started giving them money again and everything started to progress smoothly.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I don’t want to say where I’m from, but I am very familiar with Brazilian politics so it shouldn’t matter.

None of those policies are communist. Communism is a future state of society after socialism, where there is no state, money or classes.

Those are social-democratic policies. Like there were in the US and Europe after WW2 up until the age of neoliberalism in the 70s-80s.

They are better than neoliberalism, don’t get me wrong. I much prefer Lula than a neoliberal like Temer or a fascist like Bolsonaro.

But that doesn’t change that Lula is a neoliberal, with some social-democratic policies.

It’s not entirely his fault (even though other politicians like Dilma are less neolib brained than Lula…) as Brazil is, like most other places in this planet, a province of the US Empire.

It’s an exploitation province, built to extract wealth into the central provinces. The elites that exist exist because they perpetuate this system. They benefit a little, but comparatively to the misery of the masses, they live as kings so it’s good enough for them.

Lula can keep doing what he does if he doesn’t stop the flow of wealth to the outside. If he stops it in any way, couped again.

We’re all second-class citizens of the Empire. Yes, even you workingperson from the US/Canada/Germany/UK etc etc.