2023-06-15 14:08:46
There is a widely disseminated view, mainly by the PT, but also shared by the press, which attributes responsibility for the entire post-“June 2013” political crisis in Brazil, including the rise of Bolsonaro and the far-right movement. . Journalists linked to the PT, such as Joaquim de Carvalho, from “Brasil 247”, went so far as to affirm that “June 2013 was an event that dishonored Brazil”.
By: Julio Anselmo
It is incorrect to affirm that the days of June 2013 were the only cause that explains all the subsequent events, including the rise of Bolsonarismo, as summarized by Júlia Dualibi, from the portal “G1”: “perhaps, if June 2013 had not happened, had not occurred tried [de golpe de Estado del 8 de enero de 2023]”.
After all, we could extend this indefinitely in time without it explaining anything. It could be said that if the Directa Ya had not happened, it would not have happened on January 8, 2023 either, or it would have extended even further in time until the proclamation of the republic, and so on. We would enter an infinite regression that would not explain anything.
This simplistic relationship of cause and consequence fails to explain reality. It is undeniable that “June 2013” has a connection to the political and social events that have occurred in the country in the last 10 years. However, the true challenge of the analysis lies in accurately identifying the content of this relationship between June 2013 and subsequent events. But, for this, it is necessary to investigate the events and what the political and social actors did before, during and after June 2013.
The country of a future that never came
What erupted in June 2013 was outrage over a “country of the future” that never came. Brazil grew, but it went downhill. It developed relatively, but increasing its dependency. It grew economically, but it was de-industrialized. Since the 1988 Constitution, the country has been redemocratized, but has maintained capitalism and the power of the bourgeoisie.
More than 30 years have passed since the fall of the dictatorship. During this period, the governments alternated, some more to the right, others more to the left. But where did the country end up? What we saw was the deepening of the economic, social and also political decadence.
The democracy of the wealthy in the New Republic, which was already limited, became increasingly undemocratic. Police brutality, corruption and the politics of give and take have not stopped growing. The control of economic power over parliamentarians and politicians of the order dictated the rules of the game.
The end of the dictatorship was an achievement, but over three decades it turned out to be completely insufficient to change the country, since the capitalist structure was maintained, fueling inequality; the racism; the black, quilombola and indigenous genocide; the violence; the prejudice; the male chauvinism; LGBTIphobia; and the precariousness of workers’ lives.
For this reason, with “June 2013”, not only the PT, which was in the federal government, but all the parties of the order that emerged after redemocratization and the entire political structure set up since then, were put in check.
What about the PT? What did the PT governments do in response to the June mobilizations?
The PT was taken by surprise and stunned. Fernando Haddad, then mayor of São Paulo, even resisted the request to cancel the R$ 0.20 increase in rates. But the problem was bigger than that.
The PT, which was born from the workers’ struggles of the 1980s, arrived in 2013 as administrator of the businesses of the bourgeoisie: bankers, landowners and contractors.
Totally dependent on the bourgeois State, it served both to stabilize the bourgeois democratic regime and to support the economic project of a mere exporter of “commodities” (raw materials) relegated by imperialism.
He was one of the agents of the decline of the productive base of the country. He accepted a degraded position in the world division of labor imposed by imperialism. He denationalized, privatized and deindustrialized the country. The rich, partners of imperialism, got richer.
As the economy grew, the poorest had some concessions. But in a downward leveling, without ever effectively touching inequality.
As if that were not enough, he trampled on the historical flags of the black, LGBTI+ and women’s movements, either through paltry concessions, or promoting direct attacks, such as the Anti-terrorism and Anti-drug laws, which intensified the imprisonment and genocide of black youth, or the alliances with religious fundamentalist and conservative sectors, which resulted in the abandonment of effective measures against LGTBIphobia, the denial of the right to abortion and the increase in femicides.
All this accumulated a series of discontents among the workers and among a youth that was more educated than their parents, but who earned less and had no prospects for a better future.
apologies
As a justification for its capitalist policy, the PT has always used the problem of the lack of correlation of forces. In other words, they would not have the social strength to implement the changes in defense of the workers they claimed to defend.
Then, in this way, his policy aimed at “guaranteeing governability” and the defense of “possible measures” would be justified, within the limits of capitalism. For this reason, his project was limited to things like supporting the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF) of the bourgeoisie, while promoting Bolsa Família, a neoliberalism with a minimum income.
All in all, there would be no greater capacity to impose a correlation of forces favorable to the workers than a social mobilization that would put millions on the streets, turning the entire country upside down. And this was the possibility opened by “June 2013”.
The guidelines and claims could be fuzzy at first. But soon they became clearer, as well as the popular discontent as the background of all that.
No clash with capital
And here, perhaps in the face of the biggest demonstrations in our history, what did the PT do? He faced the demonstrations in defense of the capitalists. He did not take a step to guarantee the social rights and quality public services that were demanded in the streets.
And he took this position because that would clash with capitalist interests. The problem was not the lack of correlation of forces; but, yes, the program of the PT, forged to serve the bourgeoisie and not the desires of the people.
In interview with The State of S. Pauloon 06/01/2023, Jilmar Tatto, PT deputy, said that “The demonstrations represented a historic watershed because all of that motivated the political process that culminated in the fall of Dilma.”
But what he did not say was that, in the heat of the 2013 and 2014 demonstrations, in order to be re-elected, President Dilma had to make a speech more to the left, against Aécio Neves and neoliberalism, promising that she would never attack the rights of workers.
However, after winning the elections, Dilma committed an electoral stelionato against the workers and the youth to, once again, meet the demands of the “market”. In other words, from the usual capitalists.
Article published in www.pstu.org.br
Translation: Natalia Estrada.
#Brazil #happened #June