I really apreciate the time you're taking to argue with this guy, but I must tell you that it is a lost battle (if you already know this, sorry). Here in Brazil, the red-scare tactics are the far right's bread and butter (like anywere on the world). So, judging by his response pattern so far, there is a high chance that he is a hardcore Bolsonaro supporter. While some can be reasoned with, most are cannot be. Well, at least other readers can see a couterpoint.
Lol, a "we're so high and mighty the other guy's a lost cause" response here on HN. Feels like I'm on Instagram.
Dude, you literally cannot refute the fact that Lula is a communist. His own words say so. His own actions say so. Don't bullshit me about "red-scare tactics" when you have exactly zero arguments. If you don't think these people being communists is a problem, you should educate yourself on the massive damage, misery and loss of life they caused in any country where they achieved power. I'd rather be ruled by literal nazis.
Also I couldn't care less about Bolsonaro. He's irrelevant now, forget about him. I criticized him a lot during his mandate, especially his needlessly inept handling of the pandemic but I do prefer him over literal communists any day. That about sums up my opinion of that guy.
First, Lula is adept of the so-called "class conciliation", therefore he is not a communist by any means.
Second, Lula is against the idea of a revolution, with makes him a social democrat on the left spectrum, at most.
Third, you can't just use US left as a model for the rest of the world. US left (mainly the democrats) is a pale left when placed alongside the Brazillian left, for example.
> Lula is adept of the so-called "class conciliation", therefore he is not a communist by any means.
That he even mentions this marxist class bullshit is bad enough.
> Lula is against the idea of a revolution, with makes him a social democrat on the left spectrum, at most.
If you actually watch the decades old videos where he explains why he's against it, you'd realize it's because he thinks they don't work as a communist regime installation strategy.
His plan is to do it small bits at a time so that nobody notices. Boil the frog slowly so it doesn't jump, as they say. Since he's a cancerous old guy, he's been accelerating his schedule as of late so it's become a lot more obvious.
It's not like Brazil want to take sides either, so this might be a excuse, not a reason. And there is the BRICS, so taking side is not a good idea.
BTW, unlike Europe, there is no consensus here that the side to be taken is with Ukraine.
While I understand why someone may think that (just because Marx is important on both topics), they are not much related at all. The Capital is something on it's own, and Marx has the best explanation about capitalism so far.
It’s hard to separate Marxism from the USSR in the same way it’s difficult to separate facism from Nazi Germany, I think. I don’t see how one can reasonably separate a predominant ideology from the empire that popularized it.
That makes more sense if you are talking about Leninism than Marxism (yes, I know Leninism markets itself as Marxism-Leninism, but, its quite easily to distinguish Leninism from non-Leninist Marxism.
> in the same way it’s difficult to separate facism from Nazi Germany
I mean, Naziism is a lot closer to the original Fascism (that of Mussolini’s Italy) than thr USSR is to original Marxism, but it is still pretty easy to distinguish the features of either fascism in the broad sense or Italian Fascism in the narrow sense from the distinct features of German Naziism.
> I don’t see how one can reasonably separate a predominant ideology from the empire that popularized it.
Marxism was a significant global force about which regimes were concerned well before Lenin made a radical alteration to make it seem relevant to societies that had not yet acheived well-developed capitalism.
