EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Renowned Scientist Stephen Hawking Joins Academic Boycott of Israel
Popular content
Today's Top News
Former Marxist Guerilla and Political Prisoner Poised to Become Brazil's First Woman President
Dilma Rousseff, who spent nearly three years in jail during her country's years of military dictatorship and was tortured behind bars, appears to be on course to secure victory in Sunday's election.
Dilma Rousseff, former Chief of Staff and presidential candidate for the ruling Workers Party. (Photo: AFP)
A series of polls in recent days have suggested that Ms Rousseff, 62, may
narrowly pass the 50 per cent of the vote she needs to be elected outright.
Some analysts have predicted that she could fall marginally short but her lead of around 20 percentage-points over her main rival Jose Serra, of the opposition PDSB party, means she would expect a comfortable victory in a run-off at the end of the month.
She would join Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the current president of Argentina, and Michelle Bachelet, who served as Chile's first woman president from 2006 until March this year, as recent women leaders in South America.
Costa Rica also elected its first woman president, Laura Chinchilla, earlier this year.
The daughter of a Bulgarian immigrant father and a teacher, Ms Rousseff comes from a middle-class background but was active in guerilla groups that fought Brazil's military dictatorship, which held power from 1964 to 1985.
She was jailed in 1970 and subjected to electric shocks during her sentence before being released at the end of 1972.
After her release Ms Rousseff studied economics and established herself as a career civil servant. She served as energy minister under the outgoing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva before becoming his chief of staff.
Her campaign has benefited hugely from her association with Mr Lula, the man referred to as "the most popular politician on earth" by President Barack Obama.
But her poll ratings have dipped from a peak of 57 per cent two weeks ago after campaign aides were accused of leaking Mr Serra's tax records and Erenice Guerra, her replacement as cabinet chief, was forced to step down amid a corruption scandal.
Ms Rousseff, who survived lymphatic cancer last year, has taken to calling on members of her ruling Workers Party to "get into the streets to grab each vote."
Mr Serra has attacked the Workers Party over Brazil's close relations with Iran and by claiming that the country's "mega over-valued" currency was hurting exports but has struggled to make any significant inroads into Ms Rousseff's lead.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
56 Comments so far
Show AllOne can hope that by 2015 the media will eventually tire of referring to her as a "former Marxist guerilla" even if this was before most Brazilians were born. Norman Finkelstein once wrote an essay on the trajectory of those who are safely mainstream now but who wear their radical past as a badge of honor:
A former radical "can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value. Professional ex-radical Todd Gitlin never fails to mention, when denouncing those to his left, that he was a former head of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Never mind that this was four decades ago…it's hard to figure why an acknowledgment of former errors should enhance one's current credibility. If, by a person's own admission, he or she had got it all wrong, why should anyone pay heed to his or her new opinions? Doesn't it make more sense attending to those who got there sooner rather than later? A member of the Flat-Earth Society who suddenly discovers the world is round doesn't get to keynote an astronomers' convention. Indeed, the prudent inference would seem to be, once an idiot, always an idiot. It's child's play to assemble a lengthy list—Roger Garaudy, Boris Yeltsin, David Horowitz, Bernard Henri-Levy…—bearing out this commonsensical wisdom."
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=6
it all depends on WHY one changes one's position, HOW one explains away their new position against their old position, doesn't it?
i have all the respect for finkelstein, and i suspect you're taking his words out of proper context.
the question is, why would you do that? what is your real agenda?
The point that Finkelstein seems to be making, imho, is that there are quite a few ex-dissidents who are now comfortable members of the establishment but who have been dining out for decades on their radical and anti-authoritarian reputation from their salad days. Media that constantly keeps labeling these folks as ex "Marxist", "guerilla", "community organizer", etc.—even though they are quite comfortably domesticated into their high paying jobs nowadays—are doing a disservice to their readers who project all kinds of fantasies on to these politicos based on these labels.
Kristin Ross has done good work on French professional ex-radicals such as Bernard Henri-Levy whom Finkelstein also mentions. One of these "dissidents" is the current Foreign Minister of France who is a fierce defender of the Iraq invasion and other such ventures if they are carried out under the fig leaf of "defense of Human Rights":
http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/colloquium/Ross.pdf
precisely so in my opinion. Right on
and how is that point relevant to Ms. Rousseff?
unless you know for fact that rouseff is one of those "ex-radicals" who have turned reactionary?
It may be, as I have mentioned, that he mere fact that she has been 'elected' confers the mantle of reaction. But you are right here. One may make educated guesses, but in truth, one does not know.
m156:
Why would you believe that she acknowledges former errors and that she realizes she got it all wrong in the past?
She was a leftist in the past and she is a leftist now.
Because she is not running on a Marxist-Leninist platform now does not mean she has abandoned those principles. She probably realizes, as does Lula, that a compromise with capitalism is the best that can be reasonably expected at this time.
Your comment smacks of right wing bamboozle.
What are the policies that Dilma Rousseff has been following in the recent past and that she's likely to implement once elected? Too much verbiage and ink is wasted on personalities and the distant past of people that has no connection to their current life. One would have thought people would be a bit more wary based on their experience with a former "community organizer" from Chicago on to whom all kinds of fantasies were projected a short while ago. I agree though, that Dilma is not as brazen a shill for neoliberal elite rule as that other politico.
She had been following the policies of Lula, and was instrumental in the bringing of electricity to much of rural Brazil, as Minister of Energy.
Later, as Lula's Chief of Staff, she successfully worked with him to better the conditions of the poor while also improving the Brazilian economy.
She might be expected to continue with the policies of the very popular Lula, since she is his chosen successor.
This is not a discussion of personality. It's a discussion of her recent political past and current life.
She's a socialist, subdued for reasons of political expediency.
"She's a socialist, subdued for reasons of political expediency." –(port_lookout)
–I would accept this.
It remains to be seen which 'buttons' she pushes, if any to amplify her 'credentials,' making them truly more than mere mediagenic laurels, residing in name and past 'reputation' alone.
The point is not that she must recently have emerged from the 'selvas' in Brazil like a reincarnation of Che Guevara as a condition for being a true 'leftist,' but what she accomplishes vis a vis western and imperial capital– namely the United States– in the future. The 'proof is in the pudding.'
Will she move incrementally further left off the positions Lula has staked out–which frankly, are not, by a long shot, left at all– or push the envelope a little more exigently than her predecessor– toward a broader social and economic justice with a truly anti-imperialist agenda?
RE: She's a socialist, subdued for reasons of political expediency.
No, she is not a socialist. Socialism means a worker democracy. Brazil is a capitalist social democracy. At best Dilma is a social democrat - not the same thing at all as a socialist. The Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), is a populist movement originating in Bolivia and means "movement towards socialism", but it's not socialism. And I doubt if the state machinery of Brazil has any connection to MAS. This is not to say that Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil(?) may not be doing important things to improve the lives of the majority of their populations.
Keep in mind that Obama is in support of her candidacy...
"She was a leftist in the past and she is a leftist now." –(port_lookout).
Your point is well taken and it begs the question. I would want to agree with you, and said as much in my posting 'up thread.'
I think the salient point here is what did 156 did not say, for whatever reasons:
How can a 'real' leftist be elected in a bourgeois democracy? As soon as they are 'elected,' they can no longer be left.
"In the midst of the most complete blindness, perspicacity subsists in the form of tenderness and predilection. So that it is a mistake to speak of an evil choice in love, since the very fact that there has been choice, implies that it has been an evil one." –(Marcel Proust)
Similarly, it is a mistake to speak of evil choices in elections, since as soon as it has been made, it is an evil choice, by virtue of having been made in an election To wit:
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor"
–(Leon Trotsky)
"How can a 'real' leftist be elected in a bourgeois democracy? As soon as they are 'elected,' they can no longer be left."
Don't tell that to Hugo Chavez, Evo morales, Rafael Correa, Tabare Vazquez or Jose Mujica (all South Americans). They will snort at you if you do.
If we are to avoid bloodshed we must achieve socialism via the polls, incrementally. The above named have proven this is possible, at least in South America.
Is this possible in the US? I think so, if we can unify the American left along with other politically dissatisfied (which are daily growing in number) into a cohesive third party voting block.
One more indication that Latin America is progressing socially. In painful contrast, the US seems headed toward the dark ages of religious and free market fundamentalism.
One has to wonder how long it will be before the CIA, with the implicit blessing of the United States government, attempts to aid in the overthrow of a Brazilian politician because her ideology in the past was associated with that of Marxism.
no need to wait. they have been doing everything they could think of all along, and they won't stop.
Brazil is a huge headache for the CIA. It makes fantastic passenger jets that outcompete ours in cost while every bit as reliable. It doesn't need the USA like it used to. China is taking up the slack on agricultural products so the USA cannot threaten Brazil by dumping our agricultural products on world markets (not that we aren't trying). The CIA doesn't have the money or manpower to railroad Brazil; it's just too big.
Consequently you see our media (the CIA mouthpiece) and our leaders (the other CIA mouthpieces) treading gently on Brazilian policies.
Brazil has a powerful future if they can stop their pollution generating industries and go green. We can't stop them anymore. And I'm glad.
the USA is Exceptional iN LUSTING after the natural resources of other countries;
did people know that George Bush Senior with his Carlyle group own a very large patch of land in Colombia (or whatever country is just north of brazil) where the streams begin to eventually grown into the great Amazon river ?
Jenna bush was in recent months "visiting" in that area for goodness knows what "instructions" from grand pa....
that land patch happens to be high elevation, overlooking the brazilian landmass below where the amazon river and forest are.
the USA is running out of FRESH WATER...and taking some from canada.
GUESS what the USA is "eyeing" in brazil?
I forgot which website I found that in...but it seems they are establishing some Armed forces presence in that "carlyle group" "private property"....as a launching pad for ?.......
what is considered one of, if not the, world's greatest FRESH WATER collection.
brazilians are one of the few lucky peoples in the world who have inspiring and courageous leaders at critical moments in history.
best wishes to Madam Rousseff!
The US public in general has much to learn from the changes that are taking place here in Central and South America. Educate yourselves and look outside of the US for the answers. There is a whole other world out there. The US Government Terrorist must be stopped. Learn from what we are doing south of the border.
I have, so far, been disappointed with the female presidents in Latin America.
Most have swung to the neo-liberal side or have been 'center'.
Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, neo-liberal
Bachellet was 'center'
Kirchner, up in the air.
Violeta Chamorro, neo-liberal.
your own cynicism is your worst enemy.
or you're just shilling.
The list seemed an accurate characterization to me - or too mild. He wasn't "diminishing" them or being at all mysogynistic, just characterizing their politics. They were very effective at advancing their agendas - but they aren't agendas that I support.
Violeta Chamorro was a crowning victory for the neoliberal right - an achievement of the US CIA-proxy contra forces who, through much violence and bloodshed forced the Nicaraguan people to cry "Uncle". With practically a gun at their heads they voted down the three-time popularly elected Sandinista Party.
she was a woman who initiated the failed neo-liberal agenda and created more poverty in nicaragua.
and her political party/presidential campaign was funded by the U.S. government.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
There ain't no way either the Amurkan or Brazilian powers-that-be will let this women survive any first term in office she might win. Not with Brazil being a rising oil power with so many of the usual parasites lining up for the trough.
"There ain't no way either the Amurkan or Brazilian powers-that-be will let this women survive any first term in office she might win." –(metal)
–Not in a bourgeois democracy with functioning capitalist class and property relations in place.
There is no evidence that Rousseff's election will truly change things. The simple fact that she will be 'elected' all but proves the status quo will continue and bourgeois democracy will persist. Joe Biden has probably already been dispatched to her inaugural. Maybe the fascist harpy, Hillary as well.
A sign that things are changing would be to not allow either to enter Brazil. Obama himself should be told in advance that state terrorists are not allowed in Brazil. But things don't work that way now. Perhaps one day they will.
Hugo Chavez has only survived because his state 'nationalization's' have not been in themselves extreme enough to sever themselves entirely from capitalist dictates, this, despite his fulminations and obstreperousness. He threatens nothing. Neither, most likely, will Rousseff.
But something must be said for any country who could elect or even consider a person of her background to assume state power. That her torturer's were probably C.I.A. trained in America hopefully will not be something she soon forgets. Let us hope this informs every policy initiative she proffers, including conducting a pogrom of reactionary elements among the Brazilian elites and military.
No doubt Leon Panetta and his ghouls and assassins are swarming all about as we speak– greasing palms and arranging for clandestine weapons transfers to their fascist clients in the Brazilian oligarchy and military.
In America, one has Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, a 'slight' disparity in consciousness is evident here between the electorates of the two nations–and truthfully–in their respective human 'possibilities.'
There are no 'possibilities' in America, no 'human' future. There are no 'politics' in America.
An American politics that pretends that there are possibilities other than variants of fascism, is doomed to irrelevancy and is indicative of a complete failure to understand America.
Rousseff's candidacy– no matter how it turns out in the wake of Lula's 'compromises– provides a tantalizing possibility against American imperial hegemony, fascism, and capitalism. This is true even if she is merely 'elected,' and does nothing– or even regresses into Neo liberal reaction.
She is still a slap in the face of American fascism. That will have to be enough, even if only symbolic.
Why so bleak, Metal?
Lula survived and he did good things - not all he would have liked to I'm sure, but he made progress. Dilma likewise might advance the cause another step or two. Softly, softly catchee monkey.
Port_lookout has it right. This woman deserves to be elected definitely. This Simon Pure BS isn't about anything. The only thing around pure is the current president being a pure disaster and waste as well as worthless except to the over pampered and over wealthy power elites here and those aligned with them abroad. We would do well to think outside the box. Some of these people making their criticism have even confused hunters and gatherers with scavengers. Thus aren't really up to speed in the first place.
AD
Port_lookout has it right. This woman deserves to be elected definitely. This Simon Pure BS isn't about anything. The only thing around pure is the current president being a pure disaster and waste as well as worthless except to the over pampered and over wealthy power elites here and those aligned with them abroad. We would do well to think outside the box. Some of these people making their criticism have even confused hunters and gatherers with scavengers. Thus aren't really up to speed in the first place.
AD
Oh no! When will they begin calling her a terrorist!
Expect Rousseff to combine the facade of “populism” and the content of neo-liberal orthodoxy with the same success as Lula.
m156 made some good posts upthread. Not sure why folks would disparage this insightful warning. Ignore at your peril.
shill alert. do not feed the worm.
Sometimes I think I am from another planet. I find myself at odds with most people either right or left of the ideological spectrum. I find all the calling "socialist," "capitalist," "leftist," "marxist," "conservative," "liberal," etc. to be soooo last year, old, obsolete. All this terminology is used by all people to express the similarities or differences in "ideology." Honestly, whenever I read all these terms, I find that the authors are either zombie-like or are hard-liners in their "ideology."
I only see one kind of struggle in life: wealth distribution. We are born and indoctrinated into a socio-economic structure and for most of the population, we accept the system as given and impossible to change. Also, we rarely try to see the similarities among allegedly opposing "ideologies." Some people believe that the root of such current inequalities are inherent to the socio-economic system we live in the two extremes being communism and the classical economic form of capitalism where the hand of the invisible auctioneer balances the economy.
"right-wing" people believe that capitalism is the solution for our economic problems. "Left-wing" people believe that communism is the cure for all problems. Also, there is a huge confusion between what a social policy and a socialist policy is. In addition, when leftists or rightists want to point the people or structure to blame for the problems, they tend to blame a government or a country.
I find all of this so out of place. In my years of life I have been able to have time to research and analyze many important events I have experienced in my lifetime. I shall mention the most relevant ones here.
First, because of our ignorance and lack of understanding, The U.S. has garnished a lot of hatred around the world. And for the most part, most people blame the U.S. government for many unpopular and undemocratic actions we witnessed being committed by American citizens around the world. However, I see two things here: 1. The real decision-maker of policies that bear the signature of the U.S. is done at the back of the opinion of the American people. 2. Those decision-makers are not, as many people believe, the U.S. government. I believe that the U.S. has been hijacked (for already a long time) by obscure forces that I shall call "the elite" and they use the U.S. as their main headquarters. This elite has been able to indoctrinate the American people in such an effective way that many Americans willingly do things that go against their best interests (in the military, in the health care sector, etc). So, the way I see it is a structure "The elite" --> "the U.S. government"---> "the U.S. population" So, I think we should be able to distinguish who is to blame for what. Now, the American people is victimized just as any other population in any other country. So, it should be silly to hold American citizens responsible for what the elite has done to their government and to them. For example, American people believe in their heart that they live in a democracy. The is no democracy in the U.S.; people are forced to elect the candidates that the big money can afford. Another example, young American soldiers believe that when they invade other countries they are performing a patriotic duty. They are not able to see that they are going where the interests of the elite takes them, no the best interests of their country. It should be clear that the interests of the elite are not in correspondence with the interests of the American people. Hey, but indoctrination works, at least for a while and mostly during the first 20-30 years of the life of an American. Guess who gets deployed mostly to those senseless wars? yep, mostly young indoctrinated Americans.
Second, those people still thinking in terms of the struggle between capitalism and socialism (communism) should review what they have learned and try to understand the following: There is no difference in the structure of power between any economic system (capitalism, feudalism, communism, you name it). In all economic systems there is present only one structure: the elite in power and control and the rest of the population working as slaves to maintain and enrich the elite. Now, under "capitalism" at least the slaves have some sense of being owners of something. Under socialism (communism) the population (slaves) have no property whatsoever. So, slavery is worst under a communist structure than under a "capitalist" structure. However, that does not change the reality: slaves are slaves under either structure. The elite in either economic system strive to make slaves create wealth and then take it away from them. So, it does not matter how anybody can try to mask the reality, if you open your eyes wide enough you will see it. I will stop here and will return to this topic later on. I will also explain how we got to this point where 98% of the population owns 50% of the wealth while the other 50% of it is shared by only 2% of the population. This is quite unbalanced, don't you agree?
What you described as communism is actually a form of Statism.
An easy mistake to make but one that is surprising from a poster that calls themselves "economist'.
And political structure is a different thing to economic structure, don't you think?
And stop conflating communism with totalitarianism, mmmkay.
( btw, I look forward to your return to educamate us iggerant :eyeroll: )
the very notion of private property is essentialist, as in individualism, racism, sexism, and any kind of bigotry, and is at the core of capitalism.
of course communism / socialism won't start with the capitalist notion.
"There is no difference in the structure of power between any economic system (capitalism, feudalism, communism, you name it). In all economic systems there is present only one structure: the elite in power and control and the rest of the population working as slaves to maintain and enrich the elite."
I will name one that I do not see how your criticism can be applied to. Participatory Economics, or ParEcon.
If you have not heard it, I suspect you will be intrigued by it as it seems to address the concerns you have in its inception.
"m156 October 2nd, 2010 1:18 pm"
makes an excellent point which should be obvoius to any half witted observer. One more thing about Bernard Kouchner, the so called leftist foreign minister of France, he has significant stakes in the plunder going on in the Congo today.
Most of these former "progressives" turn out not to stop but slow the train of global capital so they can jump on.
It's a conspiracy of thieves. Its the west and its stooges against the rest.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/french-minister-in-fight-to-clear-name/story-e6frg6to-1111118769576
sorry. this shoukd be the correct link
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/french-minister-in-fight-to-clear-name/story-e6frg6to-1111118769576
if elected - how long before she's Allende-ed?
How Brazil Can Defend Against Financialization
and Keep Its Economic Surplus for Itself
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/09/how-brazil-can-defend-against-financialization/
Power corrupts even the most radical activist and money buys even the most devoted Marxist. Human nature speaks louder. Nothing like great amounts of cash, or the prospect of it, to soothe memories of torture and ease old ideological and philosophical grudges.
Dilma won't be different, the same way Lula wasn't. To his credit, amid incredible corruption and theft by members of his Workers' Party, Lula did manage to bring down poverty in Brazil considerably, with his "sacolões" (free food to the poor) and other admirable programs. Proven Reagan wrong once again, he trickled the Brazilian economy UP and now the country's on its way to world power. For such feat to be accomplished, Lula knew he had to compromise with capitalism. Let's hope Dilma keeps up the good work.
unnecessary cynicism like yours is the worst poison to humanity.
don't attack the messenger because you can't dispute the message :)
or understand it.
delia_darrow is correct. we should operate on evidence not on baseless superstitious faith.
You missed what the poster meant. The superstition refers to the proven fact that Dilma's distant Marxist past didn't mean at all that she remained a Marxist. She was the chief of staff of a very capitalist government, Lula's.
I praise Lula and hope Dilma follows his lead, read my post below. 80% of Brazil was basically starving when Lula took office so throwing crumbs at the masses will get you an 81% approval rating rather easily. It doesn't take away from Lula's accomplishments, of course, but he has governed as a neoliberal capitalist through and through.
Regardless of how you might define hunger, starvation or malnutrition, you're diverting from the issue. Truth is, Lula threw crumbs at the Brazilian poor. He won the presidency because the Brazilian ruling class saw his party as the best way to deal with the increasing social discontent after decades of ruthless austerity.
As president, Lula followed the essential economic policies of the right-wing governments that preceded him. Dilma will do the same.