by Ramin Mazaheri and cross-posted with PressTV
Remember in 2010 when Brazil had “arrived”? That was Lula.
Back then the United States and Europe were financially imploding but Brazil – with a strong real, fresh off the very first BRIC summit in 2009, and with the economic redistribution polices championed by Lula – was looking like a permanent and necessary geopolitical power. Their tourists were trotting the globe while Westerners were mired in bank bailouts and the undemocratic demand of austerity to pay for those bailouts.
Many of the reasons for Brazil’s economic demise since then are poorly understood, mainly because journalists prefer political intrigues to the simple math of the “dismal science”.
The imprisonment of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and the impeachment of his successor, Dilma Rousseff, was not solely the result of a coup – although the former head of Brazil’s Armed Forces just admitted that it was a political-military coup – because that would ignore the aspect played by Western high finance in destabilising the Brazilian economy enough to sway popular support against the Workers’ Party.
In effect, Lula and the Workers’ Party were deposed by bankers, who essentially went on strike in order to get them out of power – it worked.
As everyone should be well-aware of after all these years, Quantitive Easing (QE) in the West was never downloaned to the people – it took coronavirus to do that. QE was re-routed into stock buybacks, fancy real estate, Van Goghs and other asset classes of the rich, but it was also downloaned as debt traps to developing nations. Foreign direct investment into Brazil went from $31 billion in 2009 to $102 billion in 2011 all thanks to Western QE, a difference which is the equivalent of Facebook’s yearly revenue, to put the huge jump into perspective.
Crucially, this meant that the profitability of Brazilian banks at this time did not have to depend on sound domestic investments and Brazil-building, but was artificially and temporarily boosted by foreign investment.
This influx of cash to their bottom lines thus gave Brazilian bankers the ability to demand unpopular austerity measures, labor code rollbacks and deregulations in return for lending out money to (i.e. trying to make a reasonable profit from) their fellow Brazilian businesses and citizens.
This social rollback demanded by banks in order to resume lending – of course – proved incredibly unpopular, reducing the support for Brazil’s Workers Party. This coincided with other social disasters:
2013 then saw a once in a half-century drought in Brazil, which caused food price inflation. That led to strikes, which further worsened the economic situation and further eroded popular support for the Workers’ Party. 2014 saw the global commodities shock – sparked by the “endless austerity” demand of Western bankers for the Eurozone – and foreign loans suddenly became scarcer and more onerous. That year Rousseff won re-election by the closest margin in decades – the Workers’ Party popularity had been gutted from its Lula highs. The 2015 Wikileaks confirmations that the US had indeed been spying on Brazil since Rousseff took over in 2011 were drowned out by the 2014-begun “Car Wash” corruption investigations.
And thus Jair Bolsonaro was easily elected in 2018: Brazilian private media unfairly stoked blame towards the Workers’ Party, the West blamed Trump’s influence and nobody was allowed to publicly blame the moneylenders.
The role of the Brazilian military, their media and the CIA shouldn’t be discounted, but the desire to please foreign high finance is what got Lula, Rousseff and the Workers’ Party in trouble. The CIA may be powerful, but they don’t have $70 billion to debt-trap Brazil with – that illustrates the power of economics.
Still so sure Iran needs more foreign investment?
The bottom line is that Brazil did not strictly regulate foreign capital flows, and thus were cut by that very double-edged sword: Western QE downloaded into Brazilian bank computers meant that Brazilian bankers didn’t have to earn a remotely honest buck – foreign money allowed them to let Brazil burn in order to oust and imprison the Workers’ Party. But QE policies just made the process easier and faster – the same debt traps were used by European bankers against North African beys two centuries ago.
Western bankers would love to loan money to Iran, one of the last “untapped” markets for the West, but the Iranian government knows better – foreign capital, especially on Western neoliberal terms, is a debt trap and Brazil is Exhibit A.
The failure to grasp this is to implicitly believe that these same foreign creditors, who so drastically altered Brazil’s domestic social and political balance, would be loaning to actually help Iran? No, their goal is the same: to squeeze Iran dry via usurious credit rates and schemes; to pull out their loans prematurely for any number of reasons, leaving Iranian debtors and their projects in the unfinished lurch; to take control of Iran’s social and political balance.w
If this analysis sounds unusual it’s because a skeptical analysis of foreign investment is never broached in the neoliberal West, where foreign investment is always, absolutely, 100%, totally a positive thing. An analysis like this will never be in The Economist, The New York Times, or a “blue check” Twitter feed. For them, Brazil’s economic problems are entirely due to domestic “mismanagement” or the “corruption” of Brazilians, not that of Western bankers. For myself, however, Brazil’s problems are mostly the result of what I call the “bankocracy” which has become the vanguard party of Western society post-2008.
People who clamour for Iran to “open up” economically and be flooded with foreign loans should closely examine how “unarrived” Brazil is now.
Re-enter Lula to “re-arrive” Brazil?
Brazil’s Supreme Court has annulled the criminal convictions against Lula, and he’s sure to challenge Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential election.
Lula’s image as a staunch leftist is rather overrated in the West.
He is not as economically leftist, as anti-Western capitalism and as anti-foreign finance as Iran’s politicians – just look at all the foreign investment he let in (and, crucially, allowed to be easily withdrawn), or just look up his vice-president.
We can fairly say that the Workers’ Party success ultimately came down to high commodity prices.
Had the Workers’ Party developed systemic institutional changes – like the Chavistas have done with just-enough success in Venezuela – then their party’s popularity would not have crumbled so easy in the face of such obvious Deep State & high finance meddling, no? The Workers’ Party handouts to the poor are necessary and good, but were only temporary guarantors of support. Indeed, the ability of the Chavistas to remain popular amid an ever-heightening Western sanctions onslaught should be quite telling about the deep ideological and systemic differences between Lula and Hugo Chavez.
Therefore, Brazil’s 2022 election is not a “left-right” matchup at all.
It is a matchup of “left populism” versus “right populism”. It will be the world’s first major example of an established semi-leftist politician taking on a “Trumpian” incumbent. (The 2020 US election does not apply here as Joe Biden is not semi-leftist in the slightest.)
Bolsonaro is no Michel Temer, Lula’s successor who hilariously had a 4% approval rating. Bolsonaro has rallied Brazil’s conservatives similarly to Donald Trump – by tapping into the totally justified domestic anger towards Western-led, failed, Brazil-destroying, neo-globalisation/bankocratic imperialism.
He has a solid 30% base which embraces his fascistic, ardently anti-socialist unifying of corporate and military power, as evidenced by his recent appointment of a military man to head Petrobras, the national oil conglomerate. Whom did he fire? One of Latin America’s detested “Chicago Boys”, a University of Chicago-educated economist. So, perhaps we shouldn’t complain too much, but such “one step forward, three (four?) steps back” is the dilemma posed by these 21st century, done-with-globalisation, “Trumpian” conservatives.
Brazil in 2022 will thus provide the world with the most modern bellwether of the state of the mainstream and non-revolutionary political struggle – it will be modern Trumpian conservatism versus a leftism which is very far from revolutionary.
Places like China, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and a few others should be interested, certainly, but perhaps not overly hopeful.
However, Brazil was the only one of the three major Latin American powers with major ties to China, adding a key geopolitical dynamic. Could Beijing provide the stability a re-elected Lula would need? Protecting mighty Brazil is a major project for anyone, including China.
China tapped Iran as the main node for their Belt and Road Initiative because these are two revolutionary cultures – Lula and the Workers Party, do they qualify? In the West many would answer “yes”, but a clear-eyed analysis says “not yet”. I highly doubt Beijing thinks conditions are favourable to hugely aid Brazil when they haven’t even done that for Venezuela – I think Brazilians are on their own for this one.
The US never did see the media-guaranteed street battles between their “right-populists” and center-right “liberals”, but Brazil isn’t so far to the right and so historically politically apathetic as they are in the United States. The arrival of jail-hardened Lula may lead to Venezuelan-style politics and a shift in Latin American – and thus human – history.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.
Nationalize the banks. Investigate and jail the bankers. Nationalize public utilities. Investigate and jail corrupt CEOs
Purge the military of fascists.
It is amusing and also telling.
Not many comments regarding Iran article on this website.
Whereas the US world domination. The USD status, Russian independence as well as the multipolar wolrd order is playing out juste there.
In the ME.
It is telling about how much the Western demonization is doing well.
It is also telling much about the Russian attraction toward whiteness and westerness.
All being said. Many of the staunch Russian nationalist would rather prefer to be with there western racial bethren.
I am speaking of the People of street.
Not russian politicians or the Saker.
Unfortunately the opposite is not true. The anglo empire despise the Russians untermench as much as africans.
That is a source of eternal sorrow and cognitive dissonance for russians…
There could never be long lasting accord between Iran and Russia for that reason.
Also Iran is much oriented toward the umah. Not toward Russia.
Amazing what trolls are posting here:
“Russian attraction toward whiteness”
“Russian nationalist would rather prefer to be with there western racial bethren.”
Wtf is up with that “woke” garbage?
Wtf is up with that “woke” garbage?
I take your point, but if you do it this way: “Wtf is up with that ‘woke garbage?’ ” it still makes sense. Sorry.
This modus operandi of the privately owned central banks remains much the same, although the names and places of the countries and characters always follow the same strategies
The video “Princes of the Yen” describes in some detail what happened in Japan along these lines.
Princes of the Yen reveals how post-war Japanese society was transformed to suit the agenda of powerful interest groups, and how citizens were kept entirely in the dark about this. History is now repeating itself around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=5-IZZxyb1GI
Based on a book by Professor Richard Werner, a visiting researcher at the Bank of Japan during the 90s crash, during which the stock market dropped by 80% and house prices by up to 84%. The film uncovers how the Bank of Japan pumped up and then crashed the Japanese economy, with an aim of inducing change. Today, what happened in Japan 25 years ago is repeating itself in Europe, with an aim of centralizing power in the Eurozone.
“We can fairly say that the Workers’ Party success ultimately came down to high commodity prices.”
No, sir. Not any hell because of those prices.
Because the Brazilian export ratio over GNP was around 8 to 9% only. And had been historically lower than that.
And as everyone well knows it is not the tail that wags the dog but the other way round.
And everyone informed knows Lula is a lion.
Six or more years of open smearing and 580 prison days would nt be enough to shut his mouth up or bend him down.
And his Workers Party , born just 41 years ago, is the largest and most grass rooted of Latin american left leaning parties.
And last Wednesday the 8th, with a simple 80 minute speech after a supreme Court Justice had released him from the grossly fabricated lawfare convictions, Lula has rocked the country, driven dizzy the MSM Media and instantly changed both next elections scenario and the near future.
Another aspect here, which seems very important to explain the power of the USA over the world: basically they just print money (not to forget the rigged stock market), and with that “money” they buy, bribe and corrupt the rest of the world.
The perfect mafia scheme! So much better than even a bank.
The rigging of all markets and the fake money together with unbound aggression (directly by military, indirectly by secret services, together with strong media control) makes the power of USA and closely associated entities (anglo-zionist countries). The “EU” and “Germany” just try to establish themselves as smaller mobs under the rule of the bosses.
So “foreign investment” (and similarly, investments of other countries into the USA) are indeed a major tool for simple robbery, especially by the USA (much less so with German money, which has a larger part based on real work; all German investments into the USA (which the Germans are always very proud of) are nothing else than a mafia tax — which is happily paid by the Germans for the great honour to invest in fake USA-companies).
BUT, since at the same time they rob, they also bribe and corrupt at large scale, the “elites” go with that. And from a certain perspective that is indeed rational — from Russia and China you don’t get that massive bribery (from Russia not at all, and only a bit, and very clumsily, amateurishly, from China).
I do not see that Russia, China or Iran actually fight this scheme, this gigantic fraud. Their elites are likely too much involved.
Dear Ramin Mazaheri,
As a leftist brazilian, I have to tell you that this is the best article I ever read on Lula return to politics in Brazil.
Indeed, the environment in the leftwing media (basically blogs and youtube channels ) is so messed up by superficial conspiracy “theorists” and gossipers that such a such discussion at systemic level is impossible.
Thank you very much for dedicating time to study and write a so decisive article about our country.
Cheers!
Portuguese translation for those interested (no hyperlinks, no bio, no bold/italic):
Lições de Lula para o Irã antes do início do embate populista no Brasil
Lembram de 2010 quando o Brasil havia “decolado”? Isso foi o Lula.
Naquela época, os Estados Unidos e a Europa estavam implodindo financeiramente, mas o Brasil – com um real forte, recém-saído da primeira cúpula do BRIC em 2009, e com as políticas de redistribuição econômica defendidas por Lula – parecia uma potência geopolítica permanente e necessária. Seus turistas estavam percorrendo o globo enquanto os ocidentais estavam atolados em resgates bancários e na exigência anti-democrática de austeridade para pagar por esses resgates.
Muitas das razões pelo declínio econômico do Brasil desde então são mal compreendidas, principalmente porque os jornalistas preferem intrigas políticas à simples matemática da “ciência sombria”.
A prisão de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e o impeachment de sua sucessora, Dilma Rousseff, não foi apenas o resultado de um golpe – embora o ex-chefe das Forças Armadas do Brasil tenha acabado de admitir que foi um golpe político-militar – porque isso ignorararia o papel desempenhado pela alta finança ocidental na desestabilização da economia brasileira o suficiente para fazer balançar o apoio popular contra o Partido dos Trabalhadores.
Com efeito, Lula e o Partido dos Trabalhadores foram depostos pelos banqueiros, que basicamente entraram em greve para tirá-los do poder – e funcionou.
Como todos devem estar bem cientes depois de todos esses anos, o Quantitative Easing (QE) no Ocidente nunca foi emprestado às pessoas – foi necessário um coronavírus para tal. O QE foi redirecionado à recompra de ações, imóveis de luxo, Van Goghs e outras classes de ativos dos ricos, mas também foi emprestado como armadilhas de dívida para países em desenvolvimento. O investimento estrangeiro direto no Brasil passou de $31 bilhões em 2009 para $102 bilhões em 2011, tudo graças ao QE ocidental, uma diferença equivalente à receita anual do Facebook, para colocar o grande salto em perspectiva.
Crucialmente, isso significava que a lucratividade dos bancos brasileiros naquela época não precisava depender de sólidos investimentos domésticos e da construção do Brasil, mas era artificial e temporariamente impulsionada pelo investimento estrangeiro.
Esse influxo de dinheiro para seus resultados financeiros, portanto, deu aos banqueiros brasileiros a capacidade de exigir medidas de austeridade impopulares, reversões e desregulamentações da legislação trabalhista em troca do empréstimo de dinheiro (ou seja, tentar obter um lucro razoável dos) seus concidadãos e empresas brasileiros.
Essa reversão social exigida pelos bancos para retomar os empréstimos – é claro – mostrou-se incrivelmente impopular, reduzindo o apoio ao Partido dos Trabalhadores no Brasil. Isso coincidiu com outros desastres sociais:
Em 2013, ocorreu a mais forte seca em meio século no Brasil, o que causou inflação nos preços dos alimentos. Isso levou a greves, o que piorou ainda mais a situação econômica e corroeu ainda mais o apoio popular ao Partido dos Trabalhadores. Em 2014 houve o choque global das commodities – desencadeado pela demanda de “austeridade infinita” dos banqueiros ocidentais para a zona do euro – e os empréstimos estrangeiros repentinamente tornaram-se mais escassos e onerosos. Naquele ano, Rousseff venceu a reeleição pela margem mais disputada em décadas – a popularidade do Partido dos Trabalhadores havia sido destruída desde o apogeu com Lula. As confirmações do Wikileaks de 2015 de que os EUA estavam de fato espionando o Brasil desde que Rousseff assumiu em 2011 foram abafadas pelas investigações de corrupção da Lava Jato iniciadas em 2014.
E assim Jair Bolsonaro foi facilmente eleito em 2018: a mídia privada brasileira injustamente imputou a culpa em direção ao Partido dos Trabalhadores, o Ocidente culpou a influência de Trump e a ninguém foi permitido culpar publicamente os agiotas.
O papel do Exército brasileiro, da sua mídia e da CIA não deve ser desconsiderado, mas o desejo de agradar às altas finanças estrangeiras é o que colocou Lula, Dilma e o Partido dos Trabalhadores em apuros. A CIA pode ser poderosa, mas ela não tem $70 bilhões para encurralar o Brasil pela dívida – isso ilustra o poder da economia.
Ainda tem tanta certeza de que o Irã precisa de mais investimento estrangeiro?
O resultado final é que o Brasil não regulamentou estritamente os fluxos de capital estrangeiro e, portanto, foi cortado por aquela espada de dois gumes: o QE ocidental baixado nos computadores dos bancos brasileiros significava que os banqueiros brasileiros não precisavam ganhar uma grana nem remotamente honesta – o dinheiro estrangeiro permitiu-lhes deixar o Brasil queimar a fim de derrubar e prender o Partido dos Trabalhadores. Mas as políticas de QE apenas tornaram o processo mais fácil e rápido – as mesmas armadilhas da dívida foram usadas pelos banqueiros europeus contra os beys do norte da África dois séculos atrás.
Os banqueiros ocidentais adorariam emprestar dinheiro ao Irã, um dos últimos mercados “inexplorados” para o Ocidente, mas o governo iraniano é mais esperto – o capital estrangeiro, especialmente em termos neoliberais ocidentais, é uma armadilha da dívida e o Brasil é a Prova Número 1.
Não compreender isso é acreditar implicitamente que esses mesmos credores estrangeiros, que alteraram tão drasticamente o equilíbrio político e social interno do Brasil, estariam emprestando para realmente ajudar o Irã? Não, o objetivo deles é o mesmo: espremer o Irã por meio de esquemas e taxas de crédito usurárias; retirar seus empréstimos prematuramente por uma série de razões, deixando os devedores iranianos e seus projetos em apuros; para assumir o controle do equilíbrio social e político do Irã.
Se essa análise parece incomum, é porque uma análise cética do investimento estrangeiro nunca é abordada no Ocidente neoliberal, onde o investimento estrangeiro é sempre, absolutamente, 100%, totalmente algo positivo. Uma análise como essa nunca estará na The Economist, no The New York Times ou em um feed verificado do Twitter. Para eles, os problemas econômicos do Brasil se devem inteiramente à “má gestão” doméstica ou à “corrupção” dos brasileiros, não dos banqueiros ocidentais. Para mim, contudo, os problemas do Brasil são em grande parte resultado do que chamo de “bancocracia”, que se tornou o partido de vanguarda da sociedade ocidental pós-2008.
As pessoas que clamam para que o Irã se “abra” economicamente e seja inundado com empréstimos estrangeiros deveriam examinar de perto como o Brasil está “aterrado” agora.
Lula volta para “decolar” o Brasil novamente?
O Supremo Tribunal do Brasil anulou as condenações criminais contra Lula e ele certamente desafiará Jair Bolsonaro na eleição presidencial de 2022.
A imagem de Lula como um esquerdista ferrenho é bastante superestimada no Ocidente.
Ele não é tão economicamente esquerdista, tão anti-capitalismo ocidental nem tão anti-finanças estrangeiras quanto os políticos do Irã – basta olhar para todos os investimentos estrangeiros que ele deixou entrar (e, crucialmente, permitiu que fossem facilmente retirados) ou apenas olhe para o seu vice-presidente.
Podemos razoavelmente dizer que o sucesso do Partido dos Trabalhadores acabou se resumindo aos altos preços das commodities.
Se o Partido dos Trabalhadores tivesse desenvolvido mudanças institucionais sistêmicas – como os chavistas fizeram com sucesso suficiente na Venezuela – então a popularidade de seu partido não teria desmoronado tão facilmente em face de tão óbvia intromissão do Estado Profundo e das altas finanças, não? As esmolas do Partido dos Trabalhadores aos pobres são necessárias e boas, mas eram apenas garantes temporários de apoio. De fato, a capacidade dos chavistas de permanecerem populares em meio a um crescente ataque de sanções ocidentais deve ser bastante reveladora sobre as profundas diferenças ideológicas e sistêmicas entre Lula e Hugo Chávez.
Portanto, a eleição de 2022 no Brasil não é de forma alguma uma disputa “esquerda-direita”.
É um confronto de “populismo de esquerda” versus “populismo de direita”. Será o primeiro grande exemplo no mundo de um político semi-esquerdista estabelecido enfrentando um titular “trumpiano”. (A eleição de 2020 nos EUA não se aplica, já que Joe Biden não é semi-esquerdista nem de longe.)
Bolsonaro não é Michel Temer, o sucessor de Lula que hilariamente teve um índice de aprovação de 4%. Bolsonaro congregou os conservadores do Brasil de forma semelhante a Donald Trump – aproveitando a raiva doméstica totalmente justificada contra o imperialismo neo-globalista/bancocrático liderado pelo Ocidente, fracassado e destruidor do Brasil.
Ele tem uma base sólida de 30% que apóia sua unificação fascistóide e ardentemente anti-socialista do poder corporativo e militar, como evidenciado por sua recente nomeação de um militar para chefiar a Petrobras, o conglomerado nacional de petróleo. Quem ele despediu? Um dos detestados “Chicago Boys” da América Latina, economista formado na Universidade de Chicago. Então, talvez não devêssemos reclamar muito, mas esse “um passo à frente, três (quatro?) passos para trás” é o dilema trazido por esses conservadores “trumpianos” do século 21, cansados da globalização.
O Brasil em 2022 fornecerá ao mundo o termômetro mais moderno do estado da luta política mainstream e não revolucionária – será o conservadorismo trumpiano moderno contra um esquerdismo que está muito longe de ser revolucionário.
Países como China, Irã, Vietnã, Cuba, Venezuela e alguns outros deveriam estar interessados, certamente, mas talvez não muito esperançosos.
No entanto, o Brasil era a única das três grandes potências latino-americanas com grandes laços com a China, adicionando uma dinâmica geopolítica fundamental. Poderia Pequim fornecer a estabilidade de que um Lula reeleito precisaria? Proteger o poderoso Brasil é um grande projeto para qualquer um, incluindo a China.
A China escolheu o Irã como o principal nó para a Nova Rota da Seda, porque são duas culturas revolucionárias – Lula e o Partido dos Trabalhadores, eles se qualificariam? No Ocidente, muitos responderiam “sim”, mas uma análise mais clara diz “ainda não”. Duvido muito que Pequim pense que as condições são favoráveis para ajudar enormemente o Brasil, quando nem mesmo fizeram isso pela Venezuela – acho que os brasileiros estão por conta própria neste caso.
Os EUA nunca viram as batalhas de rua preconizadas pela mídia entre seus “populistas de direita” e “liberais” de centro-direita, mas o Brasil não está tão à direita nem é tão historicamente apático politicamente como nos Estados Unidos. A chegada de um Lula endurecido pela prisão poderia levar a uma política ao estilo venezuelano e a uma mudança na história latino-americana – e portanto humana.
Neither Lula nor his Labor Party intends to touch the bankster system, let alone change it.
The majority of Brazilians are conservative and politically ignorant because of the constant media blockade, which is why this article is a highlight by Ramin
Lula will need to purge all those who put him in jail. He must also get the traitors our of the military, change the fascist constitution, and above all he must mobilize the masses.
Lula is not a Chavez who first and foremost secured himself in power with the backing of the armed forces to prevent treason from within and then he implemented his social and nationalist economic policy – in that order!
it is unforgivable here on the blog the ignorance of people about Brazil. The subject here is Brazil and Lula, and people talk about other things.
BRAZIL IS A LEADER IN THE PRODUCTION AND EXPORT OF COMMODITIES: soy, iron, oil, weir, etc.
In Brazil, the first Brazilian geostationary satellite was launched for defense and strategic communications;
In campinas-SP, one of the largest and most modern particle accelerators on the planet, called Sirius, is under construction.
Brazil has one of the largest freshwater reserves in the world.
The Brazilian extraction of niobium and ferroniobium metals represents 75% of its world production.
Brazil is neither India nor South Africa. Brazil has 30 million Italian descendants, 10 million German descendants. Not to mention the Poles and other peoples of the European center who live in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro is not Brazil. Brazil is a continent, directed by the descendants of central and northern Europe.
It is necessary to know the world to understand the world.
Yes, Brazil is a country of contradictions. But that is its nature.
However, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, the trend is for Pepe Escobar’s country, Brazil, to occupy the fifth position in the coming decades, ahead of most of the countries that make up the G-7.
They ignore Lula here on the blog, but Lula was, together with Putin, the most important politician on the planet. His actions were decisive. Lula has a very high IQ, and understands the global geopolitical issue.
Hipolito Suk, Brazil is complex and I for one would not say too much about it, because of that complexity that I may not understand. What I miss in Ramin’s writing is a reference to the help that Steve Bannon gave the current regime during election time and how the Christian right was brought into the play – but this was outside the remit for this article.
But generally about Lula, I think there is a good respect for him. And if you go and search on the blog, you will find other articles, Pepe Escobar’s interviews and other writings. I do not think the serious readers here underestimate the man at all, and I for one hope that he will sweep the next elections. It will bring further new hope to most of the Latin Americas.
(And please, let none of us use that horrible new description, Latinx.)
“hope that he will sweep the next elections. It will bring further new hope to most of the Latin Americas.”
you’re wrong. If Lula wins, he will change the world, the geopolitics. Lula supported the BRICS and was the main responsible for the creation of the BRICS.
the world is unaware of one of the main politicians on the planet. If he wins the Brics he will be reborn, and that will definitely change the world.
so I insist. I see here that most ignore details, which make all the difference. Today on the planet, Brazil and Lula will define where the band will play.
If Brazil ties itself to Russia and China, the empire will fall very quickly.
With Bolsonaro, Brazil had helped the empire to remain standing for a long time. It’s simple, but it makes all the difference. Lula is a political genius of Putin’s stature, and he can change everything. Let us not forget that Russia is tight and threatened with NATO. Lula would be the refreshment, the air that China and Russia need. Brazil has the largest agribusiness on the planet, and reserves of gold and oil that have not yet been discovered, or are hidden.
IGNORING THE “BRAZIL DETAIL” IS STUPIDITY.
Por alguma razão, sempre vejo esse tipo de “ufanismo dos recursos naturais”. Por acaso você não percebe que isso é uma desvantagem? Ter muitos recursos significa ser muito cobiçado. Significa, exatamente, que os poderes globais dificilmente permitirão subjetividade ao Brasil. Ser um país extenso, como a Rússia bem o pode comprovar, tem suas desvantagens em tempos tecno-informacionais e de revoluções coloridas.
Agora, quanto à derivação cultural que você discorreu, ela é absolutamente correta. Mas veja a dialética: nos tempos do PT, houve uma quase-entronização dos elementos negro e nordestino no Brasil. Isso levou a uma cisão no Centro-Sul europeu, em especial, que nos trouxe Bolsonaro sob os brancos anglo-saxões. Esse é um problema por resolver: a esquerda puxa demais um afro-americanismo importado, reforçando a direita branquista vendida, perpetuando o ciclo. Uns trouxeram o linguajar dos Democratas, outros dos Republicanos.
Essa dialética foi bem operacionalizada informacionalmente, especialmente em 2018.
—
(English) For some reason, I always see this kind of “natural resource pride”. Do you not realize this could be a disadvantage? Too many resources means being too coveted. It means, exactly, that the global powers are unlikely to allow subjectivity to Brazil. Being a large country, as Russia can well prove, has its disadvantages in times of techno-information and color revolutions.
Now, as for the cultural derivation that you talked about, it is absolutely correct. But look at the dialectic: in the days of the PT, there was a near-enthronement of the black and northeastern elements in Brazil. This led to a split in the “European” Central-South in particular, which brought Bolsonaro under WASP. This is an unresolved problem: the left pushes too much imported Afro-Americanism, reinforcing the sold-out white right, perpetuating the cycle. The former brought the language of the Democrats, the latter of the Republicans.
This dialectic was also operationalized informationally speaking, especially in 2018.
“For some reason, I always see this kind of “natural resource pride”.
it is not pride, it is perception. The BRICs, russia and china need to understand the Brazilian complexity, if they want to have an ally that makes a difference in global geopolitics. Whoever takes Brazil will have a lot of strength in geopolitics. Brazil has concrete potential to become a global power as Russia and China are. With Lula and Brics, Brazil was on this path.
The long teaching in Brazil, prevented the world from knowing the real Brazil. What remained for the world was only Rio de Janeiro and its carnival. ORFEU NEGRO is not Brazil. There are cities in Brazil that speak only German or Italian. Russia and China are continental, this is not a problem. The problem is the Brazilian elite that is confused, has a problem with identity.That’s nothing. Potential Brazil is São Paulo and the south has become heavily industrial.
Brazil is simple: the Anglo-Saxon center-south runs Brazil (just look at the blue eyes of the dictator generals and Bolsonaro). The problem is that they still think they are Europe and are paradoxically taking too long to accept African Americans as civilizational brothers.
The largest Italian city in the world is São Paulo, with 6 million Italian descendants. The Italians, Germans came to Brazil and forgot that they no longer live in Europe. They still maintain the same mentality as before the two world wars. Neo-fascism proves this.
For example: BOLSONARO is the synthesis of this reality. Bolsonaro is a descendant of Germans and Italians. Bolsonaro’s great-grandfather was Hitler’s soldier and lost an arm, according to his television interview.
Lula is not didactic. Anglo-Saxon European south-central Brazil needs to understand that it is no longer European, that it needs to form a new civilization, a civilization like the European, but with the inclusion of the descendants of Africa. This integration needs to happen, and only Brazilian Europeans will be able to do it.
The day this happens, Brazil will be among the 5 potentials on the planet.
However, global powers do not want this to happen, just as they do not want Russia and China to prosper.
The world does not give much importance to Lula da Silva’s candidacy. However, this can make all the difference in global geopolitics. Even if they allow Lula da Silva to return, however, they will hinder and sabotage the government. Brics will have to make a difference.
Brazil is the only country in the world that has the Bolshoi school. Putin knows about the importance of Brazil.
“Brazil is neither India nor South Africa. Brazil has 30 million Italian descendants, 10 million German descendants. Not to mention the Poles and other peoples of the European center who live in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro is not Brazil.”
And what is this supposed to mean?
The conclusion is right. Lula do not have the guns.
And that’s says it all.
“the desire to please foreign high finance is what got Lula, Rousseff and the Workers’ Party in trouble”
You nailed it precisely on the head: The obsession with keeping “investment grade” granted by the Western financial venters blocked deep transformations that the Brazilian society needed and the PT never faced.
“He is not as economically leftist, as anti-Western capitalism and as anti-foreign finance as Iran’s politicians – just look at all the foreign investment he let in (and, crucially, allowed to be easily withdrawn), or just look up his vice-president.”
I suspect that Lula is, above all, a pragmatist. If he wanted to perform transformations à-la-Chavez, he could not do so given the legislative fragmentation of the Brazilian Congress. Look at the seat distribution in that congress from this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Congress_of_Brazil
A too-fragmented legislative body. The Workers Party became the first block with only 11% of seats! Tens of local, “provincial” parties with a few legislators each which are sold to the best bidder (votes for budget assignments or positions in the executive agencies)
That always happened at this congress, from Sarney on: Partido Travalhista, PMDB, PD, PSDB, etc, each one having enough votes to block but not enough to impose anything. In that aspect, having a Supreme Leader helps.
Impossible then to nationalize entire sectors or rearrange the economy otherwise.
Lula played the role of a reformist rather than a revolutionary because he couldn’t do otherwise.
Although in foreign policy Lula had successes such as the impulse to the BRICS, the new multilateral order and the negotiation of the nuclear agreement with Iran, in which Turkey was also involved, now that his return to power in Brasilia seems to be on the horizon, it is necessary for him and the PT party to proceed to self-criticism with their disastrous occupation of Haiti.
In Latin America, to the detriment of the new Brazilian leadership, its military intervention with thousands of troops in Minustah, the UN and OAS mission, in which countries such as Canada, Chile and Uruguay also participated, was seen by progressive forces as a betrayal of the interests of the Haitian people. Its result in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere could not have been other than what is now seen in the streets of Port-au-Prince: widespread human rights violations, instability and more poverty.
In the region, we believe that Lula decided to collaborate in the occupation of Haiti as part of a demonstration of Brazil’s growing power and as a concession to the ultra-right-wing military that has never hidden its expansionist dreams in South America and the Caribbean. It is no coincidence that General Augusto Heleno Ribeiro Pereira, who was the first commander of Minustah (2004-2005), subsequently supported the parliamentary coup against President Dilma Rousseff and is today one of the defenders of the fascist Jair Bolsonaro.
To avoid the ever-present coup temptations among Brazilian generals and the ultra-right factions mentioned in this forum, it is necessary for an eventual Lula or PT government to rectify its policy in Haiti and abandon its aspirations for ideological and military hegemony that are unacceptable for the region in general and countries such as Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba and Mexico.
O texto é apenas parcialmente correto.
Como dizem por aí, a política é a arte do possível, e a perseguição implacável e absolutamente ilegal a Lula (trabalho com a lei) mostra que ele fez mais do que o possível.
Lula pode ser acusado de ter surfado na onda das commodities? De ter aceitado os ditos investimentos estrangeiros (totalmente desnecessário)? Sim.
A questão dos investimentos estrangeiros já foi aqui bem abordada por Paul Craig Roberts, muito embora ninguém tenha tocado na íntima conexão disso com mentiras relacionadas ao livre comércio, estas, por sua vez, associadas às gazuas do FMI e do Banco Mundial.
Não vou perder tempo explicando, principalmente porque é muito incômodo fazer isso num celular.
O que Ramin Mazaheri não explicou:
1 – Lula aprovou no congresso a Lei da Partilha do Petróleo, que trocando em miúdos entregava 80% da renda do petróleo ao Estado Nacional (procurem Wikileaks, Chevron e o nome de um entreguista, Serra);
2 – os governos trabalhistas estavam conduzindo o Banco Central do Brasil a fazer swaps cambiais com a China, num prólogo à venda de petróleo FORA do sistema dólar (agora o comércio normal, já que a China é o maior parceiro comercial do Brasil);
3 – os governos trabalhistas (Lula sempre foi o dínamo) estavam negociando no âmbito dos BRICS instituições que iriam contornar o sistema de espoliação de Bretton Woods, o Fundo de Contingência BRICS e o Banco BRICS, que, dentre outras coisas, permitiriam afastar as malditas condicionalidades do FMI e, ao final, também negociar fora do sistema dólar.
Por isso Snowden alertou que o Brasil era prioridade número um da NSA.
Pouca coisa? Pergunte a Sadam Hussein e a Muamar Kadhafi.
Google translation,MOD:
The text is only partially correct.
As they say, politics is the art of the possible, and the relentless and absolutely illegal persecution of Lula (working with the law) shows that he has done more than possible.
Can Lula be accused of having surfed the commodity wave? To have accepted the said foreign investments (totally unnecessary)? Yes.
The issue of foreign investments has already been well addressed here by Paul Craig Roberts, although no one has touched on the intimate connection of this with lies related to free trade, which, in turn, are associated with IMF and World Bank picks.
I will not waste time explaining, mainly because it is very uncomfortable to do this on a cell phone.
What Ramin Mazaheri did not explain:
1 – Lula approved the Petroleum Sharing Law at the congress, which, in exchange, delivered 80% of the oil income to the National State (look for Wikileaks, Chevron and the name of a surrender, Serra);
2 – Labor governments were leading the Central Bank of Brazil to make currency swaps with China, in a prologue to the sale of oil OUTSIDE the dollar system (now normal trade, since China is Brazil’s largest trading partner);
3 – Labor governments (Lula has always been the dynamo) were negotiating within the BRICS institutions that would bypass the Bretton Woods plunder system, the BRICS Contingency Fund and the BRICS Bank, which, among other things, would allow the damned to be removed IMF conditionalities and, in the end, also trading outside the dollar system.
So Snowden warned that Brazil was the NSA’s number one priority.
Little thing? Ask Sadam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.
“So Snowden warned that Brazil was the NSA’s number one priority.”
perfect analysis. Ramin Mazaheri does a non-original, artificial reading of Brazil and Lula.
Lula has the same greatness as Putin. Lula influenced the whole world. Summarizing Lula to commodities is an unforgivable sin.
Brazil needs to be converted to Russia and China. It is the only salvation in the world. Slavs and asiatives need to achieve, understand this.
But I see a lot of stupidity on the horizon. I can’t believe India anymore. India sold itself to the Americans.
“Brazil is neither India nor South Africa. Brazil has 30 million Italian descendants, 10 million German descendants. Not to mention the Poles and other peoples of the European center who live in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro is not Brazil.”
And what is this supposed to mean?
Just so you know, in a growing number of categories, India is ahead of Europe in weapons development.
I am just a Brazilian citizen who observes very closely the political scene in his country and in the world and Ramin Mazaheri’s analysis on Lula, the workers’ party and the 2016 coup was very precise, hard to find something similar in the media, congratulations.
Ramon,
faltou, em sua análise, uma questão mais importante, a meu ver, do que a questão dos plutocratas brasileiros.
A eleição do Jair “anticristo” “falso Messias” Bolsonaro, foi possível graças a população neo pentecostal, que, atualmente, após o perdão do governo das dívidas das igrejas com o fisco, colhe assinaturas dos fiéis para a formação de um novo partido bolsonarista, após cada “culto” dentro dessas mesmas igrejas. Uma invasão ao estado laico, fomentada pelo próprio governo de ultra direita. Uma afronta à carta constitucional, que as autoridades fingem que não vêem. Além disto, são essas igrejas que insuflam o governo a armar a população civil, criando assim condições para o estabelecimento de milícias armadas, que Bolsonaro já arregimentava muito antes de se pensar candidato.
Estas questões formuladas aqui, são um pingo d’água num mar de lama muito maior do que vc imagina. Consulte o link abaixo bem como os links indicados ao final do texto:
http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/78-noticias/584072-em-edicao-de-onde-vem-os-demonios-a-forca-evangelica-na-america-latina.
Temos outro link, tão importante ou mais:
http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/600150-cristofascismo-uma-teologia-do-poder-autoritario-a-uniao-entre-o-bolsonarismo-e-o-maquinario-politico-socio-religioso-entrevista-especial-com-fabio-py
Você entrará em contato com a invasão rotineira e silenciosa do que de pior existe hoje nos Estados Unidos da América, ao traduzir estes textos: A transformação dos símbolos cristãos em guerra, sangue e destruição.
Google translation,MOD:
Ramon
lacked, in his analysis, a more important issue, in my view, than the question of Brazilian plutocrats.
The election of Jair “antichrist” “false Messiah” Bolsonaro, was possible thanks to the neo-Pentecostal population, which, currently, after the government’s forgiveness of the debts of the churches with the tax authorities, reaps signatures from the faithful for the formation of a new Bolsonarist party , after each “service” within those same churches. An invasion of the secular state, fomented by the ultra-right government itself. An affront to the constitutional charter, which the authorities pretend they do not see. In addition, it is these churches that inflate the government to arm the civilian population, thus creating conditions for the establishment of armed militias, which Bolsonaro had already enlisted long before he thought of himself as a candidate.
These questions asked here, are a trickle in a sea of mud much larger than you think. See the link below as well as the links indicated at the end of the text:
http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/78-noticias/584072-em-edicao-de-onde-vem-os-demonios-a-forca- evangelica-na-america-latina .
We have another link, just as important or more:
http://www.ihu.unisinos.br/600150-cristofascismo-uma-teologia-do-poder-autoritario-a-uniao-entre-o-bolsonarismo-eo-maquinario-politico -socio-religious-interview-special-with-fabio-py
You will come into contact with the routine and silent invasion of the worst that exists today in the United States of America, by translating these texts: The transformation of Christian symbols into war, blood and destruction.
The governments of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), and Rafael Correa (Ecuador) share strategies, policies, and discourses that contrast with those of the center-leftists in power in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay as well as the social democratic, socialist, and classical populist experiences of the past. All three governments have triumphed at the polls with large majorities, rely on the ongoing mobilization of their followers, and embrace radical democracy based on a strong executive branch and direct popular participation in decision making as opposed to corporatist mechanisms. The three governments have been characterized by steady radicalization, their movements consist of multiclass alliances, and their economic policies have diversified commercial and technological relations. They have also established close ties with neighboring center-left governments and have promoted unity arrangements in the continent to resolve political disputes that exclude the United States. Their movements have fashioned a new narrative of nationhood that links radical goals and nationalist sentiment with traditions of political and social struggle. Los gobiernos de Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), y Rafael Correa (Ecuador) han formulado estrategias, politicas y discursos similares que contrastan con los de los centroizquierdistas en el poder en Argentina, Brasil, y Uruguay como tambien experiencias social-democrata, socialista y populista clasica del pasado. Los tres gobiernos han triunfado en las elecciones con mayorias amplias, cuentan con las movilizaciones constantes de sus seguidores, y abrazan el modelo de la democracia radical basado en una rama ejecutiva fuerte y la participacion popular directa en la toma de decisiones, contrario a los mecanismos corporativistas. Los tres gobiernos se han caracterizado por la continua radicalizacion, sus movimientos consisten en alianzas multi-clasistas y sus politicas economicas han diversificado las relaciones comerciales y tecnologicas. Tambien han establecido vinculos estrechos con los gobiernos centro-izquierdistas de America Latina y han promovido instancias de unidad en el continente para resolver disputas politicas que excluyen a los Estados Unidos. Sus movimientos han creado un nuevo narrativo que vincula las metas radicales y sentimientos nacionalistas con las tradiciones de luchas politicas y sociales.