The boycott of the electoral farce was even greater than in the second round with 42 million abstentions, which corroborates the rejection of the masses to this rotten state and the lack of perspective within this bankrupt institution. The following is translation of excerpt from this important article written by Igor Mendes:
Just the starting point
"...
The truth is that part of the masses, not seeing any alternative that clearly represents their interests and hardened by years of recession and unemployment, has been captured (for now) by those who have spoken louder "against all that is there." This is shown by the fact that all the main parties of the "new republic", not only and not even the Workers Party (PT), have suffered from the defenestration of former “caciques” [indigenous political leaders, term used to say the one who orders] and the considerable loss of seats in the Legislative and the Executive powers. Nor should we forget that about 30% of the electorate, 40 million, did not attend or voted white or null, the largest non-vote in decades. Rather, it marks the illegitimacy of these elections, as an instance completely incapable of representing the popular will.
In fact, when we see the Stock Exchange rises and the dollar falls as Bolsonaro moves forward, it seems clear that the "market", this invisible government, has already taken its stand. This corroborates the thesis, always defended by this newspaper, that the elections are nothing more than a grotesque set of marked cards.
But what, after all, is the meaning of an eventual victory of the Bolsonaro-Mourão duo?
It must be said firmly: his victory will be Pyrrhus's victory, for the simple fact that his government will represent interests diametrically opposed to that of the immense majority of the Brazilian people. Although, in the short term, it can present a solid appearance, picking up a ride in the National Congress (which adheres almost by inertia to anyone on the Government), its unmasking will be fast. Two types of contradictions undermine the ultra-reactionary list: the contradiction between the summit and its bases, because - on the contrary to what they say - they will govern with/in favor of everything that is there, frustrating those who have backed them up; and within the very summit itself, already divided between a so-called ultraliberal wing, linked to the international banking sector, which wants to privatize everything as soon as possible, and a wing that claims to want to "preserve the strategic sectors" identified as the bureaucratic sectors of monopoly capital (role of the military patriot-like speech).
An eloquent example of the insoluble contradictions that resides in the rat's nest is the question of taxes. Take the latifundium ("agribusiness") for example: it only survives at the expense of massive state subsidies, either as credit or as tax waivers, and its support will be maintained as long as the population as a whole continues to be squeezed to sustain it. The promised "minimum" state, therefore, will be minimal only with regard to labor and social rights for the majority, because it will continue to be of the size it has in the distribution of privileges for the minority. The large "middle class" of small and medium proprietors (in commerce, transport, services, industry, etc.), who are so fiercely "bolsonarist", will soon receive the invoice of expenses in the Ipiranga Station [a common gas station]. Their current enthusiasm may then turn into its opposite.
The crisis, therefore, will continue, and together with it will also the popular dissatisfaction and the protests. October 28 will mean neither its solution nor some great "retrogression," however crazed as it tends to become the anti-communist wave, but only the starting point of a new wave of great political commotions that will inevitably come.
The great project of national conciliation represented by the PT over the last decades has failed and is seemingly crumbling. Since the Struggles of June, the class struggle in Brazil has rapidly radicalized. Marx told us that revolution will be done by those who have nothing to lose but their chains. What we see is that the official left of the country, tied by a thousand ties to the old order, represents those who have something to lose, and are missing the times when the social upheavals did not come to remove their expensive stability in office and disrupt their routine. This, not to mention those who have made a fortune from the top of the reactionary state apparatus.
Petism [supporting the PT] (backed by PcdoB [Revisionist Hohxaist Party] revisionism and other false Communists) who, over the last decades sold the independence of the people´s labor movement, which demobilized it, depoliticized it and made it a harmless appendage of bourgeois democracy, ended up on this. The emergence of the extreme right did not arise by any divine determination, nor by lottery. It is the historical process that explains it. Pretending to replace class struggle with welfare populism while applying the entire economic prescription of imperialism was part of the general offensive of the world counterrevolution unleashed in the 1980s and only deceived most of the masses. And all those who have fostered illusions with a kind of peaceful and painless transformation of Brazilian society, guarded by the high, respectful with "authorities and laws" - we know very well in which classes these authorities are recruited and to whom its laws serve - are reaping what they have sown and of these, those who still identify with the real people´s interests are obliged to give a thought with the utmost seriousness and honesty about it.
Reformists treat the reactionary phenomenon as situated outside the classes and the class struggles, in a supposed struggle between "civilization or barbarism", very unconvincing for the miserable ones who already know about barbarism at the hospital doors or in the ranks of the unemployed. They do not want to defeat the iron heel of the reaction in a death struggle, but to tie it up with the laws formulated by the bourgeoisie itself. At the end of the day, you still have to mourn the disorder. These people read the bourgeois philosophers and piously believed that bourgeois democracy was indeed democratic, eternal and unchangeable. Lima Barreto [a Brazilian writer], one hundred years ago, was far ahead of these contemporary intellectuals when he said: "The law! What a mockery, a blunder to plunder the weak and the naive!"
The process of reactionarization of the bourgeois-latifundium state, lackey to imperialism, is inevitable. What other form of government is compatible with the brutal concentration of income, of land, with the millions of unemployed and underemployed, with an increasingly primary-exporting economy? This has no way back. In fact, the reaction does not have and has never had any modesty in tearing up its own laws if this is of its interests. Attacking the constitutional illusions, so characteristic of a opportunist electoral false left, typical manifestation of the petty-bourgeois ideology, Lenin said: If political power in the state is in the hands of a class whose interests coincide with those of the majority, that state can be governed truly in line with the will of the majority. But if political power is in the hands of a class whose interests diverge from those of the majority, any form of majority rule is bound to become deception or suppression of the majority. Every bourgeois republic provides hundreds and thousands of examples of this kind. …. Hence, from a materialist and Marxist, and not from a formally juridical point of view, we must expose this conflict, and combat bourgeois deception of the people. [Lenin Constitutional Illusions, 1917]
Not only the fascist regimes, but even the most democratic constitutions have always predicted and envisaged the most extreme measures against mass rebellion (the different states of exception). The democratic freedoms serve us as a means to prepare for the great battles to come, and in this sense they must be defended, but not as a pretext to renounce those battles, which will start sooner or later. The antipode of fascism, after all, is not bourgeois democracy, but proletarian revolution."
