On reforming capitalism, on Feeling The Bern

I'm getting real tired of seeing "leftists" tripping over themselves to defend Bernie fucking Sanders. I figured I'd give them the benefit of the doubt but since even in Brazil I can't avoid the US election cycle, I figured I'd say something.

Here's some claims I've seen given for justifying supporting Bernie Sanders in the 2016 elections and why they're fairly weak arguments.

Claim #1: If Bernie doesn't get the nod, Hillary will, and she's much worse!
On what front is Hillary worse? On the question of Palestine, you'll be hard pressed to find a US politician willing to defending Palestinian sovereignty, especially one who decides to run for president. Hillary has had nothing but contempt for Palestinians for essentially her entire career, and Sanders is not much better. If you care even remotely about anti-imperialism you'll admit this is sort of a huge flaw in your argument.

People have claimed that if Sanders is elected there won't be a ground war in Syria and sanctions against Venezuela will end when in fact Sanders has been nothing but hostile towards Venezuela and Syria:

“They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator,” the email continued, referring to Venezuela’s three time democratically-elected former president Hugo Chávez. - US Presidential Hopeful Bernie Sanders Slams Chávez in Reposte to Clinton Attack

But speaking of those "Middle East terrorist organizations" Sanders hates so much:

Sen. Bernie Sanders wants Iran and Saudi Arabia to send ground troops into Syria as part of a coalition of Muslim nations to fight ISIS, an idea he’s pressed multiple times as a strategy to fight Islamic extremism in the region. [...] But that wasn’t just an off the cuff gaffe. It’s a point the Vermont senator has repeated in press releases for the past year: The war against ISIS, he said, “must be won primarily by nations in the region—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iran— which must be prepared to send ground troops into action to defeat Islamic extremists.”

 - Bernie’s ISIS Strategy Is A Disaster

Doesn't sound like a strategy an anti war, anti imperialist candidate would support. Perhaps Sanders was hoping that lumping in Iran with some of the worst sponsors of terrorism and serial human rights violators would make him look progressive. Instead it simply demonstrates that he's willing to follow the White House's strategy on the Middle East: Continue funding Turkey and Saudi Arabia to "fight" US-backed rebels in Syria.


Claim #2: Bernie promised us social democracy! If we don't vote for him we'll literally die!
I'm in over fifty thousand dollars of debt in student loans. Yes, believe it or not, I grew up in the US so this kind of affects me too! I'm not pulling these arguments out of my ass to yell at people!

Name one social democracy. In the past ten years, at least, their social programs have been absolutely destroyed. In the UK, it was New Labour that helped dismantle and privatize the NHS. Scandanavia has suffered massive cuts to its welfare programs. And in Latin America, countries that try to vote in social reforms like Venezuela are treated as terrorist rogue states.

Capitalism is threatened by social welfare programs. Even the most thriving social democracies have taken massive cuts in recent years because the money going into those programs are cutting into profits.

The US Congress knows this. Remember in 2009 when Obama tried to push an extremely capital-friendly health care reform and had it languish for months, suffering dozens of rewrites until it was barely a shadow of its former self? Obama didn't want single payer health care. He wanted to protect insurance companies and so-called Obamacare still leaves millions of people uninsured. It hasn't reduced the costs of health care and many are still uninsured.

What do you think will happen in 2017 when President Sanders begins pushing forward his plans to provide single payer health care? Do you think highly profitable industries in the US, like higher education and health insurance, will simply let these reforms happen?

Even in social democracies, people have to fight to maintain their welfare programs because capitalist countries will eventually try to abolish them. Capitalism does not like even the most toothless, bareboned social democractic system.

Claim #3: Bernie's campaign will open up the dialogue on many progressive issues!
Those issues that have existed before? And that are now being co-opted by opportunistic politicians to gain votes? We have to discuss things like healthcare and education away from the electoral system. They cannot be passed through the ballot box--the US electoral system is incredibly undemocratic as we've discovered recently. 

However, does this mean that we as Marxist-Leninists shouldn't participate in electoral politics? Lenin says otherwise:

Excerpt from "Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder

And thus, here is my purpose: to engage with those who engage with bourgeois politics. Doing so exposes the system for what it is--a farce. The reality is harsh. It isn't about discouraging people but about raising consciousness and elections are a great opportunity for communists to expose the hypocrisies of candidates and, indeed, bourgeois elections themselves.

This is conciousness raising, a revolutionary activity.

In conclusion, far too often I see "leftists" whining about communists nitpicking and being downers about elections while at the same time saying that they harbor no illusions of the system. Yet they engage with bourgeois politics in a way that dismisses working class action and organizing, which I think is the wrong way to do it. Leftists should absolutely know better and therefore I don't believe telling them to knock off the "feel the Bern" nonsense is harsh. 

I think plenty of comrades are going to have to do some self criticism and re-evaluate their positions, especially those of you with larger platforms than I. Our duty as Marxist-Leninists during elections is to raise consciousness, not parrot off campaign promises as if we've never heard of the term "populism" before.

Brief insight on leftist victim blaming

Leftists pride themselves on being the most correct, believing that their politics are the ones that benefit humanity most of all. Yet on an invididual level, leftists, especially leftist men, can be just as condescending, patriarchal, and outright abusive as anyone else. This is not news to nonmen, particularly women, in leftist spaces.

Recently a man popular in so-called "tankie" spaces known as Barry Lyndon had been outed as a pedophile and a sexual predator. Many of his victims shared his politics. In fact, Lyndon used his politics to convince everyone that he was trustworthy and indeed a good comrade. Prior warnings of Lyndon's behavior had gone unheeded by the community unfortunately, and he was allowed to roam free, sending sexually explicit messages to several people, including minors.

I will not detail Lyndon's crimes though I suggest Chicago comrades ban him from any and all revolutionary spaces--sexual predators are not radicals, ever, no matter how solid their politics appear to be. Rather, I am writing this to highlight just how poorly sexual abuse is handled by the left in general.

Firstly, I have to admit that I was one of the people Lyndon had been messaging. I am one of the victims. I've spoken to others affected by this, and while I can only speak for myself on the matter, I can confirm that we are all deeply shaken and upset that this has gone on for so long. How could a man posturing as a leftist escape scrutiny for so long?

The Marxist-Leninist community on Twitter and Facebook as a whole was both fooled by Barry Lyndon and enabled him. There is a shocking silence with regards to sexual abuse from most of the men in the community. It appears that the topic only comes up when it's time to reap the social capital that comes with being #woke and a feminist "ally."

The problem with this is that it doesn't ever seem to be put into practice. It's not like I am looking for saviors. I simply want people to hold each other accountable and make supposedly revolutionary spaces safer for vulnerable comrades. A possible solution would be to open channels of communications; leftist men should make themselves available for discussing other men people feel are abusive.

I never said anything about what Lyndon had done because I felt shame, like I had invited him to speak that way with me. I thought I was far too hard on men who were trying to unlearn toxic behavior, not realizing that the discomfort I felt during our conversations was actually unacceptable. Thus, I ended up keeping it to myself--this is how predators operate.

I would also like to discuss how many leftists are now celebrating the outing of a pedophile among our ranks not because our community is safer, but because it somehow proves that Marxist-Leninists have some propensity for abusive behavior. As a Marxist-Leninist and a victim of this sexual predator, this strikes me as victim blaming. In fact, most of his victims were comrades--natural, since we opened our hearts and even our homes to someone we considered a true comrade. Anarchists and ultra-leftists somehow think that blaming our ideology is a great way to prove the superiority of ultra-leftism.

My own community refused to listen to warning signs, which as a victim, is hurtful. Then there are these people who believe that pointing out Lyndon's political ideology is somehow important to his abusive behavior (nevermind that his victims shared many of his politics) and that naturally, bringing up his politics:

This man went so far as to suggest another comrade was a pedophile. You would imagine someone making accusations like this cared about underage victims of sexual predators, but then:

I am very glad that @BarnesEPowell made these tweets as I can properly show you these two kinds of male leftists in a single person. Someone who believes ideological beef and semantics are more important than minors being targeted by other leftist men should not fucking be calling themselves a leftist.

We fear abusive situations because often times this requires involving the police. We are sometimes vulnerable, drawn to radical politics because of prior experiences of abuse and assault. We are marginalized members of society--queer, women, of color/black--in a space that should prioritize us but instead provides cover for cishet white men and their abuses.

I do have to applaud just how strong the response to Lyndon's abuse has been, however. Chicago comrades are currently taking action against this man and it has been made clear that he is forever unwelcome in all leftist spaces. Many people, including men, have come forward in support of his victims and my hope is that during this chaotic moment, we can come together as a community and figure out how to best avoid patriarchal attitudes that lead to gross sexual abuse.

I apologize if this seems rushed. I have to admit that this has shaken me deeply. I feel that had I come forward with what he was doing to me sooner, I would have been able to prevent minors being harmed by this man. Even though Lyndon deserves all of the blame, I feel dirty and guilty for what he did to me. And that feeling increases every time so-called leftists declare that of course Lyndon was a predator--he was a Marxist-Leninist! And naturally, no Marxist-Leninist can be a victim.

I will go so far as to say that the politics being displayed right now are reactionary, an attempt to paint the victims as less sympathetic in order to hail their own brand of leftism as most correct. To be honest I don't give an actual fuck about anarchists or ultras but they seem to care very deeply about my politics, so much so that they'll go against everything they supposedly believe to slander victims of sexual abuse.

This is about the victims, and yet attention is constantly being diverted from the topic of sexual abuse so that no leftist man ever needs to self criticize and evaluate his own possibly dangerous behavior.

To those of you rolling your eyes and saying "ugh typical tankies" I hope you understand that you have no claim to the term "leftist" because you are just as reactionary as the conservatives you hate, and that you are just as unsafe as Lyndon himself because you provide cover and excuses for his behaviors.

To all those affected by Lyndon, my heart goes out to you and I truly hope we can heal.

Marxist reaffirmations

Last night, the United Kingdom voted in favor of going to war against Syria, a country ravished by violent, sectarian geopolitical forces well before the supposed civil war began. I will not cover the politics of war, nor will I go into how things got to this point.

This will be personal. I speak not as CYBERSTALIN, the Marxist blogger, but as Gabriel, the very real human being behind this blog.

Pride and prejudice as government policy

Children of Men is a 2006 movie directed by Alfonso Cuarón. The world has become infertile--no one can have children, and disorder quickly descends. The story takes place in England, following a civil servant named Theo who winds up involved in trying to get a woman, Kee, out of the country. Kee, an illegal immigrant, is pregnant, possibly the first pregnancy since the world's last baby was born eighteen years ago. England has become a fascist dictatorship where non-British people are rounded up into camps and deported -- no one knows where and the movie doesn't tell you. It's a very emotional movie, with several extremely long and impressive one shots. (Even a cinephobe like myself could appreciate these technical aspects.)

My first impression of the film was that this "post-apocalyptic dystopia" already exists. It is here, in 2015, that people of color and even non-British whites are detained and deported and held in inhumane conditions, because here, today, in 2015, these people are considered undesirable. No excuses like mass infertility are needed, because every first world country has always behaved in this manner.

Domenico Losurdo, in his book, Liberalism: A Counter History, details the history of liberalism. It chronicles liberal theory from the eighteenth century right up to WWI, citing the works of liberal darlings such as Calhoun, Tocqueville, Locke, and the revered Founding Fathers as creators and leaders of the liberal movement. What we quickly discover is that right beneath the beautiful prose about how wonderful and important liberty is to flourishing democracies is a desire and need to subject undesirables to oppression. Liberalism is fairly contradictory but at a certain point it simply makes accommodations for these inconsistencies.

Black people need to be enslaved. It's the natural order of things. The English poor need to be treated with contempt and live in disgusting, inhumane conditions. It's the natural order of things. The Irish must live in a police state. It's the natural order of things. Africa needs to be dissected and deformed and mutilated and its people enslaved. It's the natural order of things.

And so on.

Losurdo leaves off right before the first world war for a reason, concluding that liberalism must have had some part in the horrors of the twentieth century that ensued, namely the Holocaust. Liberalism enabled such an event to occur, just as liberalism enabled the slave trade and the continued oppression of black people in America, the occupation of Ireland, the exploitation of the English working class, and the bloodletting and extermination of native populations in European colonies all over the world.

Here I return to Children of Men and the present day.
Even in the film, the British are largely left alone, provided they have their papers. Terrorism exists, as the first five minutes of the film will inform you, but the state itself is not targeting the British themselves. It is implied later on in the film by one of the members of an underground resistance movement that race isn't necessarily an issue to the government. Kee's baby would probably be given to a "posh black woman". Kee's fate is not speculated but it seems obvious that she would probably be deported like anyone else. The literal mother of a new world would be deported for not being British.

This bit of dialogue is the only part of the film I take issue with, as Brits of color are indeed subjected to state terror alongside their undocumented counterparts. Even certain white demographics, even when legally permitted to work in the United Kingdom, are treated with contempt, such as Irish Travelers and Eastern Europeans. However, Children of Men does imply that racism exists, even from white non Brits being deported. In the scene where Theo is boarding a train, you can hear a white Polish woman behind a gate with other deportees complaining in Polish about being grouped together with black people. This, of course, happens in reality as well.

This scene, I think, is significant. The recent terrorist attacks committed by ISIS in Paris have set off a wave of anti immigrant and Islamaphobic hate crimes. Countries such as Poland, barely accepted by the European Union, much less the snobs in the UK, are closing their borders to Syrian refugees.

Children of Men takes place in some future very similar to ours, but I believe that a Children of Men scenario exists today. It is happening at this moment, and has been, for centuries. The dispossessed, those purposely exploited and murdered and outcast by white society, appear in the media as terrorists and opportunists. It is liberalism at play, enforcing a white supremacist (herrenvolk) democracy that requires the dehumanization of more than two-thirds of the global population to work. Herrenvolk democracy provides liberty and freedom for a select few, always white.

In Children of Men, Theo visits a friend who lives in a virtual fortress, where all sorts of rare animals and works of art live. It is completely disconnected from the outside world by heavy security and walls. Inside, the obscenely wealthy live in a fantasy world, laughing. Here we can see color, whereas outside there is only grey and black, with the occasional red blood spilling from some immigrant's brains.
The white population is generally content to eat up propaganda and discuss how they are possible targets for violence, and how they must "retaliate" against the brown people who threaten them. This outrage is merely the herrenvolk democracy's enforcement becoming visible to them for the first time. The first world is outraged that the army is on their streets, because the army should be in the streets, hospitals, homes, and schools of the third world instead, armed with drones and bombs and guns and missiles to wipe out and control the brown hordes threatening their fragile, porcelain white democracy.

To them, Europe is a stronghold of civilization in a world filled with barbaric black and yellow and brown hordes who threaten to break down their thick walls. To see the army on the Champs-Élysées is an outrage! How dare they treat us like this! Meanwhile, mere hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris, hospitals and schools were deliberately targeted and bombed in Raqqa! Fuck civilians, they are all guilty for the crime of being Syrian, of being brown, of being third world. Herrenvolk democracy means never having to see it enforced, and the militarized domestic response is a massive insult to first world white people who believe democracy is a right reserved only for them. I get liberté, egalité, fraternité. You get drones, sweat shops, imperialism. You get pushed in front of trains, you get your places of worship desecrated, you get your image plastered all over the world as a terrorist, you get arrested and detained without just cause, you get your people slandered, you get harassed, you get insulted, you get what you deserve! How dare you violate our democracy, our way of living -- how dare you be brown, how dare you be black, how dare you worship differently, how fucking dare you make me see cops on my streets instead of in your neighborhoods and in your home countries! How fucking dare you!

What these people don't understand is that without our exploitation and murder, they cannot have their fucking precious democracies and civilizations. Without the profits generated from constant warfare, the utter destruction of our environments and economies, forcing us to migrate to the first world in search of scraps and met instead with guns, tasers, police batons, cells, deportation, violence, hatred, bile, blood--without us, without our blood and tears and labor, you have nothing. Your outrage is fucking despicable because you believe that terrorist attacks are acceptable in Beirut but not in Paris, because it is okay to see the French army terrorizing citizens in Timbuktu but not forcing you to see them harassing French people of color in front of you, because the army isn't there to terrorize white French people but to protect them from the evil brown people who dare to be brown and in sight.

My heart truly goes out to the victims of the terrorist attack in Paris. Yet my fears, that any vaguely ethnic person in the west and elsewhere will be attacked and held responsible for the actions of a few, have been confirmed, over and over again, repeatedly, by the same people who scream LIBERTÉ! EGALITÉ! FRATERNITÉ! Because they know that democracy - indeed, life itself - is a right reserved only for a select few, and anyone who threatens this with their existence must be wiped out.

Children of Men may as well be a documentary. That world -- it exists, and has existed, and will exist, for millions of people of color. This is the legacy of liberalism, of racism, of herrenvolk democracy. This is what the west has to offer: terrorism, but with a shiny, friendly veneer.

Free speech is not free

Free speech is often lauded as an indisputable right that all human beings have, or should have. Free speech activists will have you believe that the right to spout whatever nonsense that comes to your mind is more important than access to food and clean water and shelter, and that censoring bigots because you "disagree with them" is as violent as murder.

Often cited examples of "totalitarian states" where free speech is completely banned are North Korean, China, Cuba, and Iran, where only the ruling parties may speak. Except all these countries actually have multiple, legal political parties. Parties in those countries form coalitions and have parties with larger followings than others just like in any other state.

In the United States, you have the option to vote for two parties, the Democratic party and the Republican party. In the UK you can vote Labour, Tory, or Liberal Democrat. Yes, there are other parties in the US and UK but they are de facto drowned out by the fact that the media does not promote them, which leads many people to believe that by voting for a smaller party, they are throwing away their vote.

During the controversial 2000 US presidential elections, Democrats blamed Ralph Nader's candidacy for the election's outcome (and, conveniently, not the suspicious disappearance of millions of ballots in heavily pro Democrat districts in Florida). This was dubbed the "spoiler effect" and has led members of the major parties in the US to claim that a vote for a third (usually more left wing than the Democrats) party is a vote for the Republicans. I detailed in a previous post how the Democrats have turned this into a strategy by enlisting the left wing of the party to recruit leftists. This is hardly representative of a true democracy, where voters are corralled into voting for a limited number of parties.

The media plays a large role in "free speech", with libertarian types claiming that the media has a left wing bias, and that anyone can get their message out there if they just try hard enough. The assumption that the media is leftist or even unbiased is a complete farce when you consider how political ads get on the air in the US. Those who sink more money into ads and campaigns typically win, as exemplified in Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

Free speech, then, goes to the highest bidder. Those who can afford to spread their message usually do, and they do so to protect their own interests. One only needs to look at the entire field of advertising--the whole purpose is to create elaborate, eye-catching ads that will make people purchase their products or enlist their services.

If you'd like more information on the subject, Michael Parenti completely detonates the idea of an unbiased media in this fantastic talk:

What about free speech in daily life, though? Many argue that using so-called politically correct language is anti free speech because it restricts the individual's right to speak their mind. Thinkpiece upon thinkpiece has been written on how safe spaces and trigger warnings baby individuals and damper discourse. (Nevermind that choosing whether or not you want to be exposed to certain forms of speech is, in itself, a part of free speech. No one says that you have to listen to hate speech.) Not being allowed to use slurs violates free speech, you see, so it is very important that all bigots have a platform no matter how huge. After all, leftists have a platform too!

Except historically, that hasn't been the case. I have so many examples to use here it's almost overwhelming. Should I remind you of the infamous Red Scare? Perhaps COINTELPRO slowly assassinating and destroying the Black Panthers and other revolutionary movements in the United States is another good example of a violation of the right to organize (and to bear arms as well--in fact the strictest gun restriction law in US history was passed by none other than Ronald Reagan, supported by the National Rifle Association, as a direct response to Black Panther party members open carrying).

Perhaps I should point to Indonesia, where five hundred thousand communists were murdered by the US-backed Suharto regime? Maybe I can point to my own country, where Brazilian communists and labor activists were tortured and disappeared (including the current president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff) by the military dictatorship? How about when thirty thousand leftists were rounded into a football stadium and executed by the Pinochet regime? Where was the free speech brigade to demand a platform for these communists? Where was the outcry from the libertarians who love to scream "I may not agree with your message but I will fight to the death to protect it" when confronted? Is it because the only people who actually die for "free speech" are the dreaded communists?

The fact that today, in the United States and Europe, it is difficult for an openly communist academic or professor to maintain their positions proves that academia is not the liberal stronghold most people imagine it is. A famous example of this is Angela Davis, who was fired for being too leftist by UCLA's Board of Reagents who was recently reinstated after years of lawsuits and public outcry. There are many other examples in this book, Academic Repressions: Relections from the Academic Industrial Complex, of leftist professors being ousted from high positions in their departments or even fired.

Ultimately, is free speech even that important? Is the right to promote movies or talk about how much you hate feminists more important than having food, healthcare, shelter, dignity? The vast majority of humanity lives in abject poverty. Only forty five percent of the world has access to the internet, most of them in the world's richest continents (North America and Europe). What about the free speech of those who physically, materially, cannot get their message out? What about the free speech of those who fight for the rights of the marginalized, the hungry, the murdered? 

Should we give Germaine Greer a platform because she believes trans women are actually men? As if that isn't a belief that literally, actually, gets trans women and trans feminine people around the planet beaten and murdered? When most trans women have nowhere near the platform that a rich white cis woman like Greer has, is it truly free speech? Is it actually free in the sense that everyone has an equal voice, when the media and universities provide violent transphobes with a platform and trans women starve to death in homeless shelters, begging for a voice, demanding justice for their murdered siblings?

When two white American men beat a Latino man and claimed they were inspired by Donald Trump, should we censor Trump and lament the loss of a voice that has directly led to violence against marginalized people? It isn't as if undocumented Latinx immigrants have massive economic and political power and visibility that allows them to openly challenge a billionaire like Trump.

Even a movement like Black Lives Matters, which gathers speed every day, is still unable to stop assassinations of black people by the police, simply because they lack the institutional power that would give them the ability to do so.

These violent beliefs start as mere speech, and that speech can and does incite people to action. Those who want to counter that hate speech find it is far more difficult to get their voices out because they are typically marginalized, poorer, and less visible than the ones espousing hatred.  

Is safety more important than words, speech? Is an idea that only supports the message of the status quo and the right wing something that should be protected? Must we tell rape jokes at the detriment of survivors of sexual assault? Must we tell antiblack jokes that reinforce stereotypes that black people are inferior beings? Is your right to tell shit jokes and make asinine bigoted commentary about virtually everything more important than safety? 

This is what your precious free speech looks like.

So you might be wondering, how would I deal with the problems inherent to free speech? I say: censor it. No platform to bigots, at all. No money, no visibility, no press. Let them fade into obscurity. And if they actively incite violence and send threats, more severe actions should be taken. For example, if someone is organizing a fascist newspaper, perhaps they should receive jail time. Perhaps we should revoke the material earnings gained from fascist and otherwise bigoted hate speech. Perhaps this is a much better solution than claiming the free market of ideas will take care of things, because as I have shown, the free market very clearly prefers some ideas over others, and that those ideas have disastrous effects for many people.

And perhaps, just perhaps, there are things more important than speech that are worth pursuing. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness looks good on paper, but in practice it hasn't exactly worked out for most of us, has it?

Once again, Parenti knocks it out of the ballpark with this video:

The day after the revolution they get up they ask, "Are there civil liberties for the fascists? Are they going to be allowed to have their newspapers and their radio programs? Are they going to be able to keep all their farms?" The passion that some of our liberal feels--the day after the revolution, the passion and concern they feel for the fascists, the civil rights and the civil liberties for the fascists, who are dumping and destroying and murdering people before. Now the revolution has to be perfect, it's got to be flawless. Well that isn't my criteria. My criteria is what happens to those people who couldn't read. What happens to those babies who couldnt eat, who died of hunger. And there, that's why I support revolution. The revolution that feeds the children gets my support.

No platform for fascists. Ever.

An overview of the current situation in Brazil

Dilma Rousseff is the current president of Brazil and a member of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers' Party, abbreviated here as PT). The PT, particularly under former president Lula, has an impressive track record on raising the poorest Brazilians out of poverty. They are progressive on international issues, recognizing the state of Palestine and accepting Syrian and Haitian refugees into the country.

President Rousseff, known almost exclusively by her first name within the country, was a true communist revolutionary. She engaged in open armed resistence during the dictatorship, including participating the kidnapping of a US ambassador. Our dictatorship distinguished itself from other US-backed Latin American military dictatorships--we specialized in torture, rather than killing. And when Dilma was caught and put on trial, she was tortured like fifty thousand other labor leaders, communists, and otherwise innocent people. She did this in the name of democracy and freedom.

Today as president, Dilma presides over an ever-growing police state that continues to arrest leftists and murder the Afro Brazilian and indigenous populations at a frightening rate. It is safe to say that the dictatorship never ended--it has simply rebranded as a populist government. The PT has failed to seriously address the crimes against humanity committed by its own government. Dilma herself has tearfully testified to the recently released truth commission report of the dictatorship's crimes, yet does not see the irony of a former victim of the regime presiding over an equally repressive government disguised as a social democracy.

The PT's popularity has plummeted, with Dilma's approval rating hovering at around nine percent at the time of this writing. While she has continued and expanded the immensely popular and successful welfare programs initiated under Lula, such as Bolsa Família, many other areas have recently received severe cuts due to austerity.

Corruption allegations have also diminished the PT's popularity considerably, though to the party's credit, more politicians (including many from the PT itself) have been prosecuted for corruption in the past eight years than at any other point in Brazil's history.

Dilma has also cracked down on dissent, particularly leading up to the World Cup. The United States has trained Brazilian police offers in various parts of the continent, training them how to deal with dissent and mass groups. And until recently, the Brazilian government contracted an Israeli security company to help violate the privacy of Brazilian citizens. Recently Congress passed a law that could potentially list protesters as terrorists, a charge which carries a 30 year sentence, the maximum permitted under Brazilian law. This bill was proposed by Dilma Rousseff herself.

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Dilma's government, but the far right has exploited the situation. Several anti-government protests have taken place this year, which have received massive, disproportionate coverage by the right-wing media. While the left has come out in support of Dilma against charges of impeachment, the situation remains precarious. A slow coup is underway as Dilma continues to fight off impeachment charges and heavy criticism from members of parliament.

It is no longer politically viable to defend Dilma and the PT. After eight years, they have gone from a center-left party to openly collaborating with the right and enacting severe austerity measures and inviting foreign capital exploitation into the country, like campaigning for hosting the World Cup and Olympics and the slow privatization of Petrobras. I believe within my lifetime, Petrobras will be completely privatized and owned by foreign interests.

We cannot speak about Brazil and the left without talking about Petrobras. Our national oil industry has been attacked by the Dilma government and already partially privatized despite massive outcry from the public. For once, both the conservative PSDB and the PT are in agreement.

Odd that the PT was out in full force against then-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the PSDB's attempts to privatize Petrobras. Odd how Lula essentially made anti-privatization part of his election campaign promises in 2002 and 2006. Odd how it was exactly Dilma, a former minister in his cabinet and a former socialist revolutionary, who was able to finally partially privatize the national oil industry, and not the conservatives.

But Petrobras will not go gentle into that good night--Petrobras workers have been on strike since September 3rd to protest this recent attempt at privatization. The fear is that the scandals surrounding Petrobras will be used as fuel to further privatize the national oil industry. It is a smokescreen--the right insists that our oil will be better off in the hands of foreign interests or oligarchs than in the hands of the government. The government is corrupt, for sure, but they can and are held accountable. Putting control of one of the largest industries on earth in the hands of the private sector would possibly be disastrous for Brazil's economy.

We as leftists must be incredibly careful about where to go next. Other left parties like PSOL have been shaky at best with aligning with working class interests and have often voted with the PT, including in favor of the law that would class protestors as terrorists. Luciana Genro, former presidential candidate and a prominent figure within the PSOL, has extended solidarity to Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president and member of the PSDB.

I believe any alliance with the right is extremely dangerous--there is no third option. We either take power or we let others rule over us. The Brazilian left is in an uncomfortable position. Dilma may very well be impeached especially after it was discovered that her administration had falsified fiscal accounts. We are currently in the deepest economic recession in 25 years with the most unpopular Brazilian president of all time at the helm of a sinking ship. It has become clear that more than ever, the left must unite and fight back against austerity and attempts to destabilize our democratically elected government.

about a day.

Disclaimer: I wrote this yesterday and put it on Facebook because of its deeply personal nature. However, after some consideration I decided to post this here. 9/11 helped shape my political beliefs, and I want my readers to understand where I am coming from. I'm sorry that everything is in lowercase and that there are no apostrophes or anything, but this is how my thoughts run. Also it's a bit of creative writing so give me some artistic license here. Anyway enjoy.