247 - PSB and Rede still have many rough edges to smooth out. Yesterday, the vice-president of PSB, Roberto Amaral, published an article in which he harshly criticizes Marina Silva's main advisors in PSB: Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca and André Lara Resende. Read below:
Of tactics and strategy
From a political and ideological standpoint, the presidential election will be fought under more difficult conditions for the progressive camp.
Tactics and strategy are terms well known to left-wing activists, as they were, in a way, imported from warfare (Clausewitz, 1832) into politics through the praxis of so-called Marxism-Leninism. Victory, the ultimate goal of war, is the sum of tactical conquests and, sometimes, defeats. History is full of paradigmatic examples, and one of them, among many, is Kutuzov's tactical retreats, preparatory to Russia's victory over Napoleon and the French army. At the risk of oversimplification, I dare say that strategy (which can be defined, broadly speaking, as the art of exploiting the conditions of struggle to achieve a particular objective) is, politically, the ultimate goal, and tactics are the instrumental action – the means, or, if you prefer, the movement, or war of positions (Gramsci), the latter being highly conditioned by circumstances.
The 2014 election, already underway, brings electoral adversaries into play, and, in a way, political adversaries, insofar as we have distinct political visions—worldviews and views of Brazil—(it is assumed that communists, socialists, social democrats, labor activists, liberals, conservatives, and the like have them). Adversaries who will have to define themselves, and if possible distinguish themselves from each other, in the face of concrete problems, such as health, education, and security, ills that are not the cause, but the effect of the capitalist order, which socialists combat.
Theirs is the strategic (ultimate) enemy, the provider of all social injustices fostered by the class state and its testament to economic, political, and social inequalities, from which result (for they did not fall from the sky) the dysfunction of public health (and not private health), the dysfunction of public education (and not private education), the dysfunction of public security (and not private security). What doesn't work is the SUS (Brazilian public healthcare system). The Sírio-Libanês and the Einsteins, like their counterparts, function very well. For those who can afford it. The progressive camp fights, having as its strategic adversary the conservative camp. Tactics, however, may be the divergences that always occur in our field, in the incessant search to define the best way to confront the strategic enemy, today, as yesterday, ready to suppress democratic and social achievements, for this is the essence of capitalism.
Socialism – it's always good to remember – arises from the critique of capitalism (and, consequently, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, of capital over labor) and has as its ultimate (or strategic) objective the overthrow of the regime of injustices and its replacement by a classless society, founded, therefore, on freedom and equality. The fraternity of the Enlightenment arrives as a consequence. But the Revolution tout court is not a given, and it is not an expectation seen from our historical horizon. Because of what seems to be self-evident, those who contest capitalism and choose it as an adversary, socialists at the forefront, have opted for the electoral path, within capitalism and according to its rules, for the immediate contest for government, and, remotely, for power (who knows when?). In other words, revolutionaries become reformists pro tempore. But, always remember, being tactical, that is, imposed by opportunity, the reformist option does not necessarily imply renunciation of revolution, to be pursued when objective conditions indicate its moment. The problem is that many times we can't even be reformists.
For socialists, therefore, the election period is also a rich time for proselytizing, defending their theses, disseminating their program, and winning over supporters. It is the time to speak 'to hearts and minds,' to strengthen their organizations, and to prepare favorable conditions for a future progressive government base.
Given these considerations, all electoral objectives are tactical, and tactics are the alliances that the logic of elections imposes, including the weight of programmatic contradictions, as long as the fight against the strategic adversary is not lost sight of.
It's a portrait of realpolitik.
The race for the Presidency of the Republic, however, is not irrelevant; it dictates our recent defeats and victories.
This signifies the intervention that is possible today in the reality that one intends to transform, in favor of the progress of social forces. If it is not yet possible to overthrow the class state, let us reformulate it, bringing to the forefront the interests of the underlying masses, always siblings of the interests of the Nation, of development, of sovereignty; hence, in the Brazilian case, the association between nationalists, socialists, and the left in general. I give as an example of an initiative in this sense the Vargas government during the democratic period (1951-54). Juscelino, after the reactionary inflection of the interim regime of Café Filho (1954-1955), gathered popular support for compromises with national and international capital. He overcame several attempts at deposition and cemented the developmentalist project. Jango (1961-1964) marks the first great emergence of the masses in the entire republican period. But the emergency was thwarted by the 1964 military coup. Lula (2003-2011) promoted the meeting of the great masses with Vargas's attempt at class conciliation. He remained in power, was re-elected, and elected his successor.
From this perspective, we can say that, with the possible alliances (tactical actions), the Vargas (PTB-PSD) and Lula (PT-PMDB, mainly in the second four-year term) governments managed to pursue the development (a developmentalism that I would call 'national-popular') of the country as a starting point to achieve – not social justice, because it is impossible under capitalism – but the political, economic and social emergence of the great masses, producing wealth and distributing income as a means of reducing the brutal social and economic inequalities that make our country one of the most unjust on the planet.
Despite the persistent international financial crisis, the Dilma government not only continues the development-income distribution strategy but also dares to confront financial capital by lowering the scandalous interest rates that have always plagued our economy. However, it runs up against the high price that Brazilian presidentialism, known as a 'coalition' system, demands for the governability that slipped from João Goulart's grasp. In Congress, it surrenders to the conservative base, made up of opportunists of all stripes, under the paralyzing leadership of the PMDB. The objective fact is that no Brazilian democratic government has managed to carry out state reform. The main points of the 'basic reforms' proposed by Jango are dramatically relevant today.
The dispute, therefore, will take place, on a programmatic-ideological level, based on this factual reality. On one side will be our strategic adversary, the conservative camp, which operates under the framework of the tragedy that was the neoliberal government of FHC, defined as exemplary by Mailson, Malan, Armínio Fraga, Lara Rezende, Gianetti and others, praised daily by the subservient media. On the other side, the progressive camp, which is responsible for consolidating and deepening these achievements of Brazilian democracy, itself an achievement, such as income distribution, spreading its benefits to an even greater number of Brazilians and, moreover, improving the quality of these benefits.
Predicting the future, foretelling fate—that's the work of fortune tellers, oracles, and astrologers. I don't possess those gifts. However, for the sake of argument, projecting today's data onto 2014, I can affirm that the presidential elections, from a strictly political-ideological point of view, will take place under more difficult conditions for the progressive camp (considering the environment in which the elections from 2002 until now have unfolded), given that, despite the undeniable achievements of the last 10 years, the left has become complacent with coalition presidentialism and has lost ground in formulating governmental proposals. This is only mitigated by the evidence that the right wing, in terms of its parties, is entangled in insurmountable internal contradictions within the São Paulo-Minas Gerais axis. Let's not be under any illusions, however. For American imperialism, Brazil is very important, not only from an economic point of view but, above all, from a geopolitical one. At the opportune moment, the right will march united, with the support of the Goebbels-like media, trumpeting the historical revision of the achievements made so far and the return to neoliberal delirium.
These considerations constitute a lengthy preamble to a discussion of a matter that seems to me more fundamental: the continuity of the union of progressive and left-wing forces, beyond the 2014 election, which, looking at the world from the top of the bridge, is an important event, but only that for those who think in historical terms. The organic left needs to ensure that the (inevitable) squabbles and petty arguments of electoral competition, the petty politics, do not overshadow the project of grand politics, which is the construction of popular options. And the most didactic way for the left-wing parties – PSB, PT, PCdoB and PDT – to reveal these greater objectives of unity in action is to advance in joint action within the social movement. At a time when electoral fever is at its peak, it is time for our leaders to contemplate the future, which is the continuity of common action in the struggles undertaken by social movements.
Furthermore, whatever the pronouncement of the electoral citizenry may be, it is fundamental for our future that the parties of the so-called 'left-wing camp' renew and substantially increase their presence in Congress, especially in the Chamber of Deputies, where we are currently an overwhelming minority, at the mercy of transactions that take place outside of politics and any order of ethics.
No one, except angels in Paradise and paranoids on Earth, carries out the politics of their dreams in the Passárgada they invented; we all make the possible politics (with the data provided by reality) in the real world, a possibility conditioned by the ethical order of each individual. The preeminence of circumstances over dreams, of reality over will, does not, however, constitute determinism. If the political agent is not given the choice of the conditions under which he will act, he must always freely choose the role to play in the given circumstances.
Read more at www.ramaral.com
Roberto Amaral is vice-president of the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), former Minister of Science and Technology, and former CEO of the binational company Alcântara Cyclone Space (ACS).