Palocci according to Tarso
What we should demand, however, is from ourselves: let's leave behind all illusions about the other side. Palocci included.
Many people have written about Palocci, about his trajectory, about how things led to this, about what he intends with his testimony to the judge in Curitiba, about the repercussions his statements will have on Lula, especially now on September 13th.
One of the texts on the subject was written by Tarso Genro: it is entitled Sendic, Palocci, and the destinies of the revolution.It was published on September 11, 2017 and can be read here: https://www.sul21.com.br/
Upon reading Tarso's article, I immediately recalled a comment made by an acquaintance back in 2012: "Stop thinking that Palocci's actions are motivated by high politics; what interests him is money."
Similarly, I would recommend that Tarso not "judge" Palocci's actions in light of the great tragedies of Soviet socialism.
Part of Tarso's article is dedicated to the resignation of Raul Sendic in neighboring Uruguay, whose Broad Front model many claim to want to copy, perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the "Tribunal de Conducções Políticas" (Court of Political Conduct).
I don't have enough information to comment on the merits of the accusations against Sendic, but it seems obvious to me that there, as here, this type of situation is just a symptom.
Furthermore, I do not share the attitude of those who emulate the Broad Front, without making any mention of the growing strategic differences that exist within the Uruguayan left, in addition to disregarding the profound differences between Brazil and Uruguay.
But I'm not going to address that here, just as Tarso didn't, because for him, talking about Sendic, the Armed Forces, and Uruguay is merely a kind of introduction to discussing Brazil, the Workers' Party, and Palocci.
According to Tarso, in Uruguay the political system encourages the existence of a programmatic party, with minimal internal discipline and mechanisms to control the conduct of any of its members. In Brazil, however, the political system eliminates this. Put this way, I disagree.
The "system" may discourage, persecute, and combat, but it does not have and never will have the necessary power to eliminate those who propose to be anti-systemic.
The issue, in my opinion, is another: segments of the left have accepted becoming systemic, they have ceased to be anti-systemic. And they made this conversion publicly, openly, and, I might add, with gusto.
According to Tarso, "everything indicates that Geddel thought that the investigations and proceedings that are underway (as some PT members originally believed) were initiated solely to 'screw over the PT'."
Not in those simplistic terms, but that's exactly what I think: Operation Lava Jato was, from the beginning, instrumentalized to combat the PT (Workers' Party).And for this reason it should have been fought hard, and not seen as a republican operation, by people whoI sincerely wanted to eliminate corruption., as some sectors within the PT itself seem to continue to believe.
The irony of history is that, when Lava Jato was launched, a significant portion of the Workers' Party (PT) had already converted to "the system." Therefore, attacking the PT caused immense collateral damage. And all this within a context of growing political crisis, which preceded and to some extent was caused by the Operation itself. These collateral effects were not anticipated and are not accepted by sectors of the right wing, hence the emergence of some of the growing conflicts within the coup movement.
Tarso believes that "this is an episode similar to the 'Moscow Trials' in the Stalinist era, in which truth and lies quickly became one another, depending on the constructed post-truths, but without losing sight of the ultimate goal, on the part of those who control the State. There, in the Modern State without democracy, the objective was to keep the castes of the omnipotent bureaucracy in power; here, in the weak Democratic State with a decadent democracy, it is to 'carry out the reforms' and eliminate the thinking left – all of it – from the political process in the coming decades."
From my perspective, I find it very difficult to find the "similarities" that Tarso sees. The worst part is that he uses these supposed similarities between the cases to portray Palocci as a tragic victim of historical forces.
According to Tarso, "I don't believe that demonizing Palocci (...) brings anything good to the PT, to the country, and to the left in general."
Obviously, I am against demonizing. But Palocci's statements need to be qualified and exposed as lies and, moreover, as tailor-made to contribute to the attack on the PT. Palocci has become an enemy of the PT and that's how he needs to be seen, and that's what we need to react to.
According to Tarso, "Palocci is a weakened man, a desperate hostage of the exception, who, in a politically amoral context, is attempting his own individual exit, for which he lacked party guidance throughout this time."
Personally, I would love to have Tarso as my lawyer. But politically, what does his interpretation of Palocci's actions lead to?
I recommend everyone watch Palocci's testimony. He didn't appear frail. In fact, his behavior was more like that of a sociopath.
In his testimony, he himself explains his motives: to receive benefits, which certainly include freedom and access to some of the money he amassed, using at least part of methods that he himself claims were illegal.
Party affiliation? Since at least 2003, the orientation that Palocci has followed is different from that of the Party.
What does this have to do with Bukharin's dilemmas in the Moscow Trials? Tarso thinks it has something to do with it. I can't see any similarity. After all, we're in a capitalist system, the PT isn't in power, it doesn't control state institutions, Lula isn't Stalin, and Palocci isn't Bukharin.
Furthermore, Palocci has been involved for some time now. minding his own business.
There is a consistency between the positions he defended when he was the main expression of social liberalism in the PT (Workers' Party), between what he did to amass a small fortune and what he is doing now.
It wasn't the judge from Curitiba who turned him into what he is today; Lava Jato merely brought to light something that was already there, something that many good people couldn't see, or preferred not to see, or didn't draw the necessary conclusions from what they were seeing.
For this reason, I prefer not to call Palocci a traitor, nor an informer.
Whoever betrays or informs is revealing our secrets to the enemy. Therefore, regarding his testimony, I prefer to call Palocci a liar.
Of course, from a more historical perspective, he will always be remembered as a traitor. But the first person he betrayed was the student and doctor Antonio Palocci, that person who was on the left. But this betrayal didn't happen now; it predates Lava Jato.
At the end of his article, Tarso asks, in a somewhat hesitant, almost insider-like tone, whether "at the present moment, is it human to demand more from Palocci, chained to a context in which he is the only one 'in which he can act'?" And he answers: "One can demand more, logically, but one must clearly point out in whose name."
I don't think it was reasonable to demand anything from Palocci. It was clear from the beginning what he would do. The sordidness and abject servility are merely the seasoning of a testimony that had been predicted.
What we should demand, however, is from ourselves: let's leave behind all illusions about the other side. Palocci included.
And in whose name? In the name of everything that – with all the mistakes we have made collectively and/or individually – we mean for the struggle of the working class.
* This is an opinion article, the responsibility of the author, and does not reflect the opinion of Brasil 247.