trans.

There are only two options:
Bolsonaro | Communism
Honesty  | Stealing (corruption, perhaps?)
Progress  | Backwardness
Freedom  | Slavery
Wealth   | Hunger

God, Fatherland and Family.
It’s your choice

Meanwhile, the people are poor and hungry. More than half of our population (~100 million) face food insecurity, and more than 19 million are in hunger. The people are in extreme debt, facing evictions, unemployment and poverty, which fuels crime.

There are criminal factions growing stronger, which are in practice capitalist enterprises employing terrorism with their own mercenaries, and they are supported by large international private banks. There are millions in sub-employment under large corporations which exploits their workers like slaves, kids as young as 14 years old are working traveling full kilometers in a bicycle carrying food for a middle class consumer who ordered something on an app, in return of 5 reais per kilometer, which can’t even pay a full meal.

Meanwhile the Congress are trying more and more to pass bills which would “flexibilize” the contract between employers and employees, in essence, trying their best to legalize this slavery

That’s it – Corruption, backwardness, slavery and hunger. So, following the “reasoning” of this propaganda piece, Brazil is definitely a communist country

  • Camarada Forte@lemmygrad.mlOP
    6·
    3 years ago

    Anti-imperialist? Lula was very close to the United States, even promoting military and police cooperation. It was also during Lula’s period that banks enriched themselves while the poor received crumbles of social programs. Yes, there were positive policies, but positive in the sense that a turd is more positive than diarrhea, in comparison to past governments of FHC and Collor.

      • Camarada Forte@lemmygrad.mlOP
        5·
        3 years ago

        Yes he was. I’m not saying there wasn’t a single positive aspect of the Lula government, there certainly were many positive things we can learn from that experience. But we should call Lula’s government what it was: a bourgeois government under bourgeois institutions preserving the bourgeois order. For instance, the reason Lula was close to BRICS was because of the dependency of the agribusiness to these countries. He was a big BRICS partner because of the business interests of the rural bourgeoisie.

        This is also the reason Brazil is neutral in the Russian-Ukrainian war, even though we are under a bourgeois dictatorship with fascist characteristics, because Brazil depends on Russian fertilizers and the Chinese market to export soybeans to. It doesn’t mean that Lula and Bolsonaro are “big pro BRICS” politicians, it only means they are following the interests of the bourgeoisie.

        We can say Bolsonaro is simply a matter of form, but the content of Lula and Bolsonaro’s government remain much the same, the only difference is that social programs were cut and investment in important sectors of the economy were halted after the coup against Dilma Rousseff. Actually, in many aspects, Dilma Rousseff was a much less subservient politican than Lula, and was a very honorable stateswoman, hence why she was couped.