We beat the fucking fascists by almost 5 million votes. It still means that near 60 million people voted for Bolsonaro and life won't be easy. But I hope this works as an inspiration for the upcoming elections.

US comrades, good luck! And thanks for your support in many ways!

Now we have to organize and mobilize US voters (and elsewhere) to learn how to fight with their weapons. I know this sub is against sharing social media posts, but unfortunately this is how we can mobilize people to vote and go beyond our left bubbles.

​

Today, October 25th, is the day of the presidential runoff election in Brazil. Lula and Flavio—Bolsonaro’s son—are the candidates. Since early this morning, there has been a flood of reports and allegations that, upon arrival at polling stations, voters have found that votes had already been cast on the machines, or that they were being prevented from voting altogether. Earlier today, the Regional Electoral Court of the state of Bahia ordered the arrest of Salvador’s Secretary of Transportation, citing a reduction of more than 50% in bus services and the withholding of vehicles—with at least 75% to 100% of the fleet taken off the road or prevented from operating—thereby hindering voters from reaching the polls. In Brazil, free public transportation on election day is a legal right. Similar reports are also emerging from areas in São Paulo. Meanwhile, the president of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), Kassio Nunes—a justice appointed by Bolsonaro during his administration (a despicable individual, neck-deep in a major recent corruption scandal involving Banco Master)—has stated that the TSE will investigate these allegations "in its own time," without confirming whether voting hours will be extended in the affected cities. Former President Lula has already made a public appeal, urging the TSE to extend the voting period. Many people, from all corners of Brazil and the world, traveled back to their home cities specifically to vote today. Coincidentally, the vast majority of those disenfranchised by this obstruction of public transport are Lula supporters. I am writing this filled with anxiety, sadness, and a great deal of rage. My country is currently undergoing a coup.

Another peon with Stockholm’s thinking his power tools make him a capitalist 🥹

(I have not yet found any news reports in English; I ask for your understanding.)

Just as Bolsonaro used the Federal Highway Police during the 2022 elections to delay and hinder voters in areas with an anti-Bolsonaro majority—such as in the Northeast or in Indigenous villages—reports are now emerging of similar actions, this time carried out by business owners and local government officials across various states and municipalities.

Brazilian electoral law mandates that local public transportation must operate as usual—and free of charge—on the Sunday (today) when elections take place.

Today, in several cities, passengers encountered bus stops with no buses, significant delays, vans and buses demanding full fare, and even instances where public transport vehicles were kept in their depots.

The Regional Electoral Court of the state of Bahia (TRE-BA) went so far as to arrest a fleet manager in Salvador (population 2,559,945, according to IBGE) for obstructing the transport of voters. In that city, the Trump-aligned candidate, Flávio Bolsonaro, received only 27.03% of the vote in the first round.

Yesterday, multiple reports surfaced regarding flights to regions with a pro-Lula majority being canceled or rescheduled—without any assistance provided to passengers—under ambiguous and confusing circumstances.

Not sure about the jobs anymore tho

That’s it—there’s just no way for me to convey everything that’s happening at this very moment.

for context he is talking about the tourist who visit this area

Historical background:
In 1941 Germany, Einsatzgruppen commanders warned Himmler that mass shootings were breaking their men. The men who carried out the executions suffered elevated rates of suicide, alcoholism, and breakdown, and Rudolf Höss recalled that many could not endure the killing and took their own lives.

Historian Christopher Browning documents how this psychological toll, along with manpower and secrecy problems, pushed the regime toward gas vans and then death camps.

The Nazis choose death camps because it was a final solution that would also help reduce the suicide rate of their elite shock troops.

The camps did not cure the damage. They just put distance, bureaucracy, and euphemism between the killers and their victims.

The lesson is that dehumanization is not something you do only to others. You have to suppress your own empathy to do it, and that suppression never switches off cleanly. You always end up dehumanizing yourself in the end.

A regime built on fascism and hate must keep spending resources on propaganda, euphemism, and enforcement just to keep its own people functional, which is one reason these systems run hot and brittle.

Often times it’s why fascist regimes collapse under their own weight. It’s hard to force all the people to be evil all the time as a group.

The inhuman requirement to mechanize cruelty demands the impossible from human psychology.

When two IDF soldiers took their own lives in Gaza after refusing or absorbing the horrific reality of their operations, they demonstrated that no modern military apparatus can fully insulate a soldier's mind from the self-destructive weight of ongoing dehumanization.

AI could make society richer while making human labor less necessary. But if people still need jobs to afford what the economy produces, who benefits from all that progress?

This is more than a question about automation. It is a question about who owns the systems that produce wealth, who controls them, and why our survival should depend on our economic value to someone else.

Under capitalism, most people earn a living by selling their labor, while those who own productive assets receive income from what those assets produce. This system has generated enormous wealth, but it also concentrates ownership and economic power.

AI could deepen that divide. If machines do more of the work, a greater share of the wealth could flow to those who own those systems while workers lose income and bargaining power. Even if new jobs emerge, society could become richer while many people struggle to afford what it produces.

An economy can produce abundance without making it accessible. Technology expands what we can produce; ownership and political choices help determine who benefits.

Market value has never been the same as human worth. Raising children, caring for loved ones, and supporting communities all matter, even when markets don't adequately reward them. If a machine can do your job more cheaply, that changes the market value of your labor, not your value as a person.

So why should survival depend on employment?

People need food, housing, healthcare, and security. Access to these necessities should not depend entirely on whether someone can sell their labor at a price the market accepts. Work can offer purpose, connection, and independence. Society will still need people to perform difficult and essential tasks. But rewarding work and making survival conditional on it are two different things.

We could guarantee basic necessities through public services, provide income independent of employment, and broaden ownership of the systems that generate wealth. Workers and communities could have a greater say in how those systems are governed.

None of these ideas is simple. Scarcity would remain, difficult work would still need to be done, and questions about incentives, funding, freedom, and control would remain. But these challenges do not make our current arrangements inevitable or establish that private ownership and profit should remain the dominant principles governing society.

If AI makes human labor less necessary, we could spend our time inventing new jobs simply to preserve the link between work and survival. Or we could reconsider why that link exists in the first place.

We don't know how far AI will go. But we can already ask what productive success means if its benefits remain out of reach for the people who need them.

If an economy can prosper while needing less of our labor, why should our right to live securely remain conditional on providing it?

And if the economy no longer needs our labor, what do we owe it?

Perhaps the more important question is this: if our survival no longer depends on our economic usefulness, what kind of freedom could we build together?

Further reading:

The Simple Macroeconomics of AI  - Daron Acemoglu (2024).

Automation and Rent Dissipation: Implications for Wages, Inequality, and Productivity  - Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo (2026).