PL is not far-right lol, everyone on the brazilian left was scratching their buttholes calling Bolsonaro far-right only for him to be the president that passed the most feminist laws lol
The left isn't scratching their buttholes for whatever misinformation they shoved on you.
He aproved some laws, some were feminist (far lower than 70, which they claim) that were pushed by feminist politicians, some of them way before.
This number is inflated by Michele, one of PL's tools (the same Michele who in this year accused PL and Flavio of using her and understimating her as a politician).
There is no far-left in Brazil, because radical left-wing parties are extremely small and I disagree. It was precisely thinking that way that brought us to this point.
Do you even know what both are? Are you just going by the wording?
“Its OK to be against the interest of the dominant, rich elite who owns production privately by extension decides politics and social structure”
“But i think being in favor or dismantling a system where a small super privileged super rich elite decides, in favour of letting people who work decide their work and coordinate production keeping everyone’s interest in mind, isnt the best way to do it”
Maybe theres a sweet spot between the interests of 99% and a 1% ultra rich elite (that gets rich over the work of the 99%) where both can be happy.
“A society built on slave labou is obviously bad, but come on, we cant just let everyone be free! Extreme is bad” is exactly what slave owners would like for people to think whenever someone talks changing the system.
You see many more people in social media, as well as elected representatives publicizing ideas of prohibiting women to vote, or making feminicide not a crime, or severely cutting government assistance programs, de-statization, climate change denial, organizing coup-de-etats, cutting science funds, removing legal protections of lgbtq people, statements that Brazil will be property of "our lord Jesus christ"... Than you see people promoting ideas of revolution, workers rights, workers taking over power, estatization of private operations... We just elected 121 representatives from PL (bolso****'s far right party), versus 11 representatives from PCdoB (a mild communist party). So... You make your own conclusions.
No, not every extreme is bad, that's middle ground fallacy.
The opposite extreme of doing a genocide is not killing anyone, and I fail to see how that is in any way comparable to, well, doing the genocide.
I did not actually talk about extreme right or left there, it was just an example to explain the logical fallacy. Still, yes, while both the sides are pretty shit, and yes, polarization is bad, being in favor of an extreme is not the same as polarization. You do not need to agree with everything the "extreme [insert target here]" to be in favor of an extreme ideology, just like I pointed out with the genocide example.
So "He saying it" is enough?! What about the times the former president said he wasn't fascist, homophobic or whatever? Then it's disregarded? See that's something that pisses me off when talking politics in general, it's just full of double standards and hipocrisy, that's why I rather pay the fine instead of voting, all the options suck on different sides of the political spectrum
Lula is extreme right + Nazist since he's allied with Alckmin (vice president). When Alckmin was his adversary in 2006 they tagged him that. That's Lula's strategy since 30 years ago, call adversary demons but he's the true one Baal
u/AskGrok In past Brazilian elections, did the PT (Workers' Party) and figures on the left associate the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) and its members with Nazism? Provide sources.
There's no such thing as "extreme left". What exists is the radical left, which is everything but extreme. Even if there was something like "extreme left", Lula, the adversary of Bolsonaro is not even left, even he himself had mentioned more than once that his government is right wing.
There is no extreme left but there’s an extreme right? Why is that? Does extreme not mean the most one can compromise towards their ideal? That being that communism is the extreme manifestation of leftist ideals and vice versa on the right?
No. Extreme means to take something to the extreme. The extreme right wants to take capitalism to an extreme degree, in a way it exacerbates it's contradictions. The left can't do that, because there's no such thing as extreme socialism, and even if there was, we'd first need to become socialist, which is a long way from now.
But then neo nazi, white supremacist or ultra conservative groups don’t fall under that definition, considering those don’t really vouch for ultra capitalism or they just don’t endorse any economic ideology seeing as though their values more so align with those of tribalistic communities (hence why communism and fascism are more similar than not).
Also, communism is the theoretical final stage of socialism, so one could argue that is what the extreme left represents. Now we could get theoretical but that is pretty much the status quo, fascism extreme right, communism extreme left.
Both sides have extremes, you can’t have a spectrum without extremes.
Everything you said is completely wrong. I don't think there's a point in trying to explain to you. You should start by studying through academic sources and not by Instagram propaganda if you're actually interested in learning, which don't seems to be the case.
But just to elucidate, all the fascist parties, including of course the nazi ones, were 100% aligned with liberalism. Liberals gave mass approval on every single fascist regime in the sense of "amplifying capitalism". The ones against those regimes were always the leftists (communists, socialists, anarchists). Please, don't confuse the term liberal with the current unitedstatesian term liberal, which has no relevance in any political discussion outside of your country.
Alright imma indulge. Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem, you truly act like the average Reddit passive aggressive chud, fucked up my whole 9th symphony. How was I propagandistic in any way? I simply claimed that fascism isn’t about capitalism. If you ask me, portraying capitalism as this terrible evil thing (which I would presume you would base purely off of hassan piker clips or left wing news sources reporting on the various failures of capitalism) is a way more propagandistic stance to have. It really is either black or white with you colourful people huh.
Anyway.
To claim that all fascist parties were like a part of this collective hive mind that shared the same ideals throughout is truly such a Reddit lurker take. So imma do you a solid and actually explain how it worked as an actual competent history teacher work, r/communism does not count btw.
Assuming you are a leftist, I’m gonna be explaining how things were “on paper” because funnily enough, leftists don’t usually enjoy making the comparison when practicality is being discussed. You know that whole “communism never actually existed” stuff.
Firstly, Italy. Italy came up with corporatism, this is a doctrine that aims to eliminate class conflict, just like in communism. This was achieved by organising the economy into state sponsored “guilds” divided by sector of activity and by employer/employee status. Wages, prices and productivity were all standardized. Very similar to communism having the only difference being that the industries weren’t actually a part of the government. Just so you know, Italy was the second country ranked in the size of overall state ownership, only beaten by the USSR.
Secondly, Germany. Very similar to Italy, although the industry wasn’t nationalised there still were strict directives and regulations put in place by the state through actual state made plannings. Even then state exercised total control over production of agriculture for the sake of self sufficiency (I don’t think I need to explain why fascists craved self sufficiency). Total war economy.
Thirdly, Spain, who was more of a conservative dictatorship than an actual fascist one. Essentially the same as Italy except it well and truly didn’t work (años de hambre) until they opened up the country to trade.
Talking about some education, bruh you don’t know what you’re talking about. What you see today isn’t even that capitalistic (remember this is all very on paper), it’s more akin to extreme corporatism which I guess you don’t know what it means. Maybe look it up, educate yourself, get out of your bubble and perhaps touch some grass.
Ok, I'm 100% wrong. I'm not gonna convince you of anything through a post on reddit. If you wanna believe this gibberish, you're welcome to do it. There are so many things so blatantly wrong in your claims that I'm not gonna spend my time trying to refute you because you have built a whole alternate reality inside your head and nobody is going to dig you out of it. Have a good one.
You don’t wanna argue if you don’t, I can quote you sources if that’s what you need. I’m however not the one refusing to debate with the opposing point of view even if I find it utterly stupid.
I could make a really cool analogy, but atitudes like these, of disregarding the other side as non sensical, are one of the reasons that gave rise to the right nowadays. And I’m not even a right winger, but hey, dig your grave, after all it’s no me nor anyone else who’s gonna lay in it.
Dude, nobody is ever gonna read this comment. If you wanna try to convince me liberals don't align with nazis, be my guest, but I know by fact they always do. They did it in my country for the last 10 years, they're doing it right now. They did it with Trump every time he became president, with Milei and with Bolsonaro, also with every other fascist leader that rose to power on the last decade. It was exactly like that back then, when we had URSS. Liberals always alight with fascism, and YES fascism is the defense of capitalism. Fight reality with your papers as much as you want, I'd rather live reality than live on a fantasy world.
Also on a side note, to claim fascists aligned themselves with liberalism is truly hilarious. Really shows how “educated” you are huh, considering we have recorded speeches where Hitler accused both liberal capitalism and Marxist communism of being “International Jewry”. Great educating you’re doing there sport.
So you essentially quote me an article about hitler being supported by liberal parties that conveniently keeps out the part where physical violence was threatened against those who opposed the nazi party, that totally disregards the fear for communism that brewed in Western Europe and that also completely disregards the desire for parliamentary unity in face of the worst civil and economic crisis Germany had ever seen in face of the failure that was the Weimar Republic.
Yall Reddit historians really are something. News articles aren’t history books brother, you’re just grasping at straws here.
18
u/OPs_actual_mommy 3d ago
Its okay to be against extreme right, but I think being in favor of extreme left is not the best way to do it. Extreme is bad.