Another Fine Specimen
5 November 2003 



Things fall apart, the center cannot hold

Let no man deceive you with vain words

Brazil's Metamorphosis 

By Igor Taam

From time to time I read the news and articles of the PT (Worker’s Party),, official site. And it's not old news from old notebooks, it is this year’s declarations. It’s possible to see that old aspirations – suffering metamorphosis, or not – still live. Look at this affirmation of José Dirceu, head of Civil House:

We are retaking the political agenda of 1964 because problems like cultural democratization, agrarian reform, national autonomy and citizenship are still ongoing since then. (

For the reader who doesn’t know what happened around 1964, I can explain in three words: Brazil's counter-revolution. In 1964 President Jango Goulart was chased out of office by a resolution of the National Congress. This is the story: Jango Goulart was vice-president under Jânio Quadros. Quadros had a critical pro-Cuba policy (he gave a medal to Che Guevara while the guerrilla was passing through Brazil as an official guest). Quadros resigned and Goulart assumed the presidency. After a trade mission to China, Goulard signed decrees expropriating oil refineries and uncultivated land owned by foreign companies. He attempted to install a leftist dictatorship. At a time when the Soviet Union threatened freedom, Goulard let the Communists' influence increased too far and he fell.    

Now let us come to the present time. José Genoino, president of PT (the ruling Workers Party), talks too much. He disclosed the following in an article for Estado de São Paulo, June 7 of this year:

The democratic left redefined, decades ago, its strategy of political action for democratic societies. From the formulas of Antonio Gramsci, the democratic parties of the left accept the premises of the political democratic game until the final outcome. The radicalization and deepening of democracy was part of a centralized strategy. This is a  fight for hegemony over the political, cultural and moral (values) of democratic society. This struggle for hegemony and for the construction of a cultural consensus also has a material implication. This implication seeks to guarantee a material balance between different social groups. Put in another way, it is a fight for a material and economically equitable society. (

I could stop here, I made my point, but I won’t. Things must be accounted clearly. On another occasion (June 12), Genoino said:

With these parameters [conditions of minimum governability, restrictions on financial markets, control of the internal forces of the country] obtaining in reality, to think that the Lula government is a government of transition to socialism is to think an illusion. Even though not even the parameters of what is socialism are defined. (

What did he want to said with that? “[N]ot even the parameters of what is socialism are defined.” [!!!] What is going in their minds? The Genoino affirmation begins to make sense when we consider an article of Tarso Genro, Secretary of Economic and Social Development, to Folha de São Paulo in January of this year:

The greatest and true question is, honestly, whether we have, or not, the possibility of  'another socialism' on the horizon. (

They say it's not their objective to repeat the totalitarian experience of Eastern Europe; so they don’t propose anything clear. Their answers most of the time are too generic, and they abuse metaphors, but the old slogans and mottos never stopped, as they continue toward "a new project," "a reconstruction of a new utopia," or in pratical terms:

a consensus that subordinates the economy and the market to social politics. (

What is the nature of this “subordination”? Is it social democracy? No, absolutely not! It's the "new utopia." Verily, the social democracy of Blair is only "a servant of liberalism",

'the Third Way failed, became an accomplice,' said Genoino. (

Genoino answered in a recent interview for Estado de São Paulo, about the growing economic orthodoxy of FHC. For the construction of a new utopia, the given strategy is Gramscist and Leninist:

We are not going deep. We had to hold the ox by the horns to be able to leave this situation. Already I said to my friends they need to read one of the decisions of Lenin, after the Revolution of 1917. He made concessions to the multinationals on exploration of the Baku oil, because he did not have money to explore. The problem is the political necessity of taking these measures. You take these measures in a direction to deepen the model or in a direction to create conditions for another model procedurally. (

Of course the reporter asked what will ultimately come of these "concessions"? With Lenin we had Communism. Genoino answered, first generically, "a democratic, socially fair and sovereign country," then he said PT is playing the "democratic game." Of course we shouldn't be deceived on this account, because playing the democratic game, as Genoino said, is part of the strategy. We must understand that terms like democracy are quite different for socialists, communists -- or neocommunists, if you prefer:

“He [Lula da Silva during the opening of the 22 International Socialist Congress] mentioned the creation of the Foro de São Paulo as a basic initiative that allowed, for the first time in history, the Latin American left-wing to join what he called discussions of “basic democracy.

“He [Lula da Silva] criticized the political economy which dominated the world in recent decades and led to an exculpatory democracy, leaving vulnerable countries to [the mercy of] speculative capital and did not give due attention to the question of human rights.” (

Different days, different strategy, same old mentality. The results can’t be good. Calling the Foro de São Paulo (created by Fidel Castro, the PT and Lula) “basic Democracy” is completely crazy. Despite the newspeak, it’s obvious that these people had poisoned their own minds, and in the process they contaminated the rest of society.

Remember the declaration of a former communist, Nicolas Buenaventura, and his simplistic picture of democracy: “we always made an obvious lecture, very, very simple, of the history of formal democracy. We always reason thus: a democracy without bread, school, without land, is purely formal, is a lie."

As I posted before, ( Tarso Genro affirmed that new socialism must be considered not only a "regulating idea" of public politics (from total inequality to greater equality) but also the rationale for a transition from formal democracy to "substantive" democracy under a system of compromising socialist parties.

I do not have reasons to believe that the European left-wing, or the "healthy left" of democracy, must have the same parameters of comment in Latin America, in Brazil. We must be honest. Here the Marxist mentality continues, and "basic democracy" means signing pacts with communist (and/or neo communists) and terrorists organizations. By the way, they also want the radicalization of democracy. The PT copula says it does not want the Third Way, nor the socialism of the East; they want the "new utopia" of "another socialism," and for this they employ the assumed Gramscist and Leninist strategies. The practical end, the final objective, is to subordinate the economy to a social project of the party badly defined. And what is this project, in reality? It promises us a disarmed citizenry at the mercy of the intelligence services of the PT (the Petepol), magnified by the anomalous and deceptive propaganda of the Lula regime, in alliance with the revolutionary MST, with an anti-American foreign policy, pro-FARC, pro-Chávez and pro-Fidel Castro. (The Cuban dictator is "an ethics example", in the words of Lula da Silva.)

Pravda praised Lula, Castro praised Lula, and despite the anti-American policy of Lula's Brazil, American Ambassador Donna Hrinak praised Lula, giving him the ultimate seal of approval as an immaculate player of "the democratic game." American left-wing newspapers praised Lula too, even President Bush did it (which is nothing new, remembering that Castro was first praised by the North American government -- the usual wrong choice). As in Venezuela, where things are going downhill faster, the mask falls and nobody cares anymore. Something really bad is happening, but cowardice, general ignorance and political "inclusiveness" has stolen all the thunder. 

To understand what is really happening, the reader should refer to the following commentaries:

Brazil is undergoing a revolutionary process. The history of the ruling PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores), and the left wing in Brazil, is the story of communist strategy in action. Those who know the communists can see what is happening. Those who do not know, see nothing. For them the revolution is invisible. And the more time passes, the stronger and more irresistible it becomes. 

Father Lula, Brazil's revolutionary leader

In the 25 January edition of O Globo -- the greatest journal in Brazil -- psychoanalyst Fernando Coutinho perceived that "Lula is using the same image as Tito and Stalin; and even if he condemns their political acts, Tito and Stalin were also controllers who assumed the father role. And coincidently they were not people of great intellectual ability." The psychoanalyst did not try to compare Lula, Tito and Stalin politically, but he offered a good and exact profile of the new president.
In his speech to the World Social Forum, Lula said to tens of thousand of listeners that he wanted to handle them, each one of them, as he handles his "little boy." What the psychoanalyst still does not know is that the universal communist program is a law that determines the behavior of communist leaders. 
It is therefore clear that paternalism alone does not explain the affirmation at the beginning of this text. Paternalism does not occur "coincidently." At any rate, the speech of Lula does not stop there. 

The speech at the World Social Forum

When they hear the speech of Lula at the WSF, people are so deluded that they cannot or will not see what is under their noses. Two parts of the speech of Lula are enough to make everything clear: "I know the hope that the world's socialists have put in the success of our government," Lula explained. "So many people died before us, trying to get here." Regarding the first statement, we can see that the PT belongs to the team of Cuba, China ... and the Soviet Union. It is socialist. Prepare yourselves for an inevitable tyranny:

(1) in this case it is the tyranny of communism. Why Communism? Reading the second sentence, Lula remembers the years of struggle "trying to get here," and he talks of those who died in the process. And who died in trying to establish socialism in Brazil? It was Lamarca, the communist assassin and traitor. It was Carlos Marighella, it was the terrorists of the MR-8, the VPR, the VAR-Palmares.

(2) But others survived, like the current Minister of Mines and Energy, Dilma Vana Rouseff; like Genoino, the former Maoist guerrilla and current president of the PT. Also take a look at Jose Dirceu, the Cuban agent and current Head of the Civil House. Present, past, and the past in the present.

The PT is a party that includes, since its foundation, syndicalists and those dedicated to communist terrorism. The examples are innumerable, from Carlos Minc to Tarso Genro. Despite all the evidence Lula acts as a lawyer, as always, defending his communist friend, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, saying, "We cannot accept a 40-year blockade of Cuba."

Today's blindness is such that some columnists in the great media, on the occasion of the celebration of Lula's victory, asked what the Cuban dictator was doing as a guest of the party of democracy. When will they wake up? They Failed to perceive that Lula is a communist; that Lula presides with Fidel Castro at Forum de São Paulo, where, among co-religionists and sponsors we find representatives of the narco-terror organization FARC, Tupac Amaru and the main communist parties of Latin America. The PT is co-founder of the Forum de Sao Paulo, and was the first to convoke this frightful organization. According to their official Web site, the Forum "came to debate the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe and its consequences." Even an elementary school student knows that the socialism of Eastern Europe was communism [i.e., Marxism-Leninism]. And this is what they discuss besides their resolutions. In Havana, before this Forum, Lula made a warning to its members: "Many times we speak as if we wanted or we could build socialism in four years. History does not correspond to the rhythm of our apprehension." 

Communists always talk about famine, peace, a better world and "democracy," but these are slogans that do not reveal their true intentions. If we know what communism is then we know its code words and what these words really signify. And we can also identify the communists at work in our midst. 
Perhaps Lula does not think of himself as a pure-blood communist, but this will not keep him from behaving as one. He did not make an ipsis litteris declaration, "I am a communist." Refraining from such declarations is part of the communist strategy of taking power by stages and by stealth. 

Revolution by stages

It is instructive that Lula considers Fidel Castro to be his "example." Think of Castro's method. He promised to reconstruct the economy, to restore Cuban democracy and oppose dictatorship. He was even recognized by the North American government and it still didn't stop him from making Cuba the dreadful island it is today. Lenin had previously warned his followers against preaching communism to everyone. One should only preach this message to a handful of fanatics. 

The most important thing, in grabbing power, is to discover the yearnings of the great masses, and to elaborate programs with a popular following. Being thus enabled, the communists can manipulate the masses toward communist ends. In an election for the office of British Prime minister, Lenin gave the following instructions to the members of the Communist Party of England: "At the moment it is very hard for the English communists to get a fair hearing from the masses. If I declared my communism openly and addressed the workers, stirring up them to vote for Herdenson (candidate of the Labour Party) against Lloyd George, of course I would ... be supporting Herdenson in the same way that a rope supports the hanged." 

There will be great leaps and small steps along the path of building a socialist state in Brazil. The election of Lula was a great leap indeed. What the left wing media calls the "party of the democracy," Nikita Khrushchev would call a "national-popular revolution" or a "popular-democratic revolution" similar to what Dirceu advocated from the "moderate" wing of the PT. 

In Czechoslovakia, after World War II, we did not see the communists directly seizing power. But in three short years they were suddenly in control of everything. Before taking power, the red dictatorship had fashioned political alliances with the social democrats. Communists were infiltrated into all the key positions. Then it happened. The country fell at a single blow. 

What is happening in Brazil has happened before. The communists have already used these methods to take other countries. People here do not see what is happening. Their thinking is mistaken and nobody does anything to stop the inevitable communist takeover. Brazil is like a patient who has all the symptoms of cancer. When a doctor tries to warn the patient of his condition, the patient rambles deliriously that the disease will save him. 

In Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, we are reminded that a socialist government inevitably becomes tyrannical. This is confirmed by many historical examples. Brazil cannot be an exception to the rule. We must remember that Brazilian Communist organizations tried to take power by way of terror in the 1960's and the 1970's.

It is also important to remember Resolution No. 9 of the "X Meeting" of the Forum of Sao Paulo from December 4th to 7th of 2001, in Havana, where they decided to "ratify the legitimacy, justness and necessity of the fight" of the FARC in Colombia, a communist drug-trafficking and para-military organization. (See the Jornal da Tarde, Nov. 29 of 2000.) It is amazing to learn that our president and the cupola of his party admire gangsters who suppressed the most basic freedoms; that he admires a Cuban tyrant who nationalized not only the nation's companies, but also the people. You would think that anyone who idealizes a dictator who suppresses the right to come and go, the right to choose your own job, the right to speak freely, would find himself politically isolated. But this "magically," does not happen in the case of Lula and the PT. The Brazilian people are so doped on lies that they do not care about what is happening. Instead, they are offended by those who point out the facts. 

What is to be done?

And now we come to the final phase of Brazil's descent into communism. It is necessary to clearly show the direction of Brazil's revolution. This cannot be an easy job because most people ignore what communism really is. They do not understand its tendencies. They do not recognize its many faces, its strategies, its dialectic, its directions and misdirections. Another thing that obstructs our understanding is the leftist hegemony in the Brazilian media, prettifying the red monster while ignoring vital information. But once we learn what communism is and how it operates, it is easy to understand the red revolution in Brazil.

The present reiterating the past

The PT is a party that includes, since its foundation, men and women dedicated to terrorism and to communism. The ministers of Lula’s government include such people. Let us see the past of some of the current ministers and secretaries of the State (see the ONG Terrorism Never More –

  • The Secretary of Sports, Agnelo Queiroz, is an important member of the Communist Party of Brazil (PC do B).

  • Antonio Palocci, Secretary of Treasury was a Trotskyite militant. Recently his “moderate” Government in Ribeirão Preto announced the creation of a pro-FARC committee.

  • Dilma Ruseff, Minister of Mines and Energy, participated in the activities of the VAR Palmares, famous organization for its armed action.   

  • Jose Dirceu, Head of the Civil House, was banished to Mexico in exchange for the life of the U.S. ambassador. Later he left for Cuba to study the “Course of guerilla warfare," and also became a Cuban agent. In Cuba, between 1960 and 1970, he was trained in weapons, logistics and financial subversion. Dirceu recently affirmed that he is “eternally grateful to the people of Cuba, particularly President Fidel Castro” and "I do not forget them. I hold in my heart, in my memory, the image of each one and the ideals of all."

  • Luiz Dulci was a Trotskyite militant of OSI (LIBELU). He is the General secretary of the presidency.

  • Luiz Gushiken came from the OSI (LIBELU) too. He is the Secretary of Communication in the government.

  • Marina Silva, Environment Minister, was a militant of the Communist Revolutionary Party (PRC).

  • Nilmário Miranda, Human Rights Minister, participated in the origin of the Organization of Leninist Marxist Combat-Labor politics (OCML-PO). As a member of the House of Representatives for the PT he was detached in the defense of Communists.

  • Tarso Genro was a member of the Communist Party of Brazil (PC do B). Attracted by armed action he entered the Ala Vermelha – “Red Section." He was also a militant in the Communist Revolutionary Party before joining the PT. He is now the Secretary of Economic and Social Development.

  • Olívio Dutra, Minister of the Cities, deserves a whole chapter.

Well, nobody should deny that our new government ministers are a frightening bunch. Is it true that the PT changed, that it is now a moderate organization? Did the communist rage, which made men like Jose Genoino into Maoist guerrillas, suddenly evaporate? Or have they merely changed tactics while their ideals continue to animate them beneath the surface?

Following the declarations of the Heads of PT it is possible to arrive at a definite conclusion:

“The PT, as a laical party, politically and philosophically plural, knows that the construction of a Socialist State, that combines the mechanisms of a representative democracy with direct control from a council, is not opposed to the revolutionary seizure of power." [Taken from page 102 of The PT and Marxism: Notebooks of Theory & Debate, a publication of the PT, 1991.]

“... A long dispute for hegemony ... in building a political culture with a socialist ideology in groups organized for revolution, moving toward a rupture with the bourgeois State ... duly warned to limit itself to confrontations in the political sphere with the institutions of order, playing up to these....” (Tarso Genro, Theory and Debate, no. 4, 1998, pp. 38-41).

“A new critical thought won’t deny the past, but will learn from its errors and the experiences of past revolutions the hope, generosity, and the knowledge that illuminated even the darkest nights. If this new horizon is still called communism, this is the hour of its reestablishment” [Marco Aurélio Garcia, The Manifesto of the reestablishment of Communism, 1998. It is proper to point out that Garcia, as special assessor of the president, here explains the external politics of the PT.]

“Castro is an ethical example," Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, Jornal da Tarde, Nov. 29 of 2000. It’s always good to remember, beyond the slavery of the Cuban people, the involvement of Fidel Castro in drug trafficking as related by for former employees of his government. 

 "Private, Lula, 56 years of age, thinks the election is necessary 'humbug' for taking power," Le Monde, 1 October 2002.

"I know that four years is not too much. But if we do not forget the commitments of our fight of many years, we will be resting on a solid foundation with some walls raised and some rooms finished." Lula’s recent discourse regarding the Itaipú – the greatest Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant in the world. (Foro de São Paulo.)

These declarations are crystal clear. The commitments of PT and its Marxist and revolutionary co-religionists are obvious. But these commitments are nowhere being discussed. I shudder to remember that Franklin Roosevelt once assured his friends that Stalin was not communist. We are seeing a replay of this foolishness. 

The FARC cheered the victory of Lula in the Brazilian elections. What did the elected government do? Did it publicly repudiate the narco-guerrillas of Colombia? No, there was silence. Readers may also consider the pride that Pravda took in Lula's victory.

Olivia Dutra

Olívio Dutra has been disobedient to the Gramscist strategy of taking power. Olívio Dutra has given the game away. Unlike Lula, when asked about his relations with the FARC, he simply utters ironies. Olívio Dutra, Minister of the Cities, repeatedly disclosed his (socialist) communist leanings while working in the government in the Rio Grande Do Sul. 

Nelson Sirotsky, director of the periodical Zero Hora, had already confirmed that Olívio Dutra used government money and the threat of withdrawing official advertisements in order to pressure publications to remove inconvenient journalists. Here we see the old road to serfdom and the results of economic dependence on the State. Trotsky already said that “in a country where the only employer is the State, opposition means slow death by hunger.”

Someone who lost his job in this arm-twisting game was Simões Pires, who showed on TV a photo in which the former-governor and his Secretary of Education posed between red flags with college students holding up "clenched fists." Here we see the use of children for violent ideological propaganda. But this still is not everything. The representative of the FARC, Hernan Rodriguez, was received with great tenderness by the governor. Hernan, as later disclosed in an interview, bragged of being assured protection inside Brazil. The local government of Olívio Dutra also instigated the invasion of one of the most productive farms of the Rio Grande do Sul, coloring a gross expropriation with judicial legitimacy.

The possibilities of Tarso Genro – talking too much

In his most recent article, “Socialism and Lula’s government," written for the Folha de São Paulo on 30 January 2003, Tarso Genro affirmed that socialism must be considered not only a "regulating idea" of public politics (from total inequality to greater equality) but also the rationale for a transition from formal democracy to "substantive" democracy under a system of compromising socialist parties. And what is the attitude of this "regulating idea"? According to Tarso: “that attitude conscientiously promotes a type of utopia."

The doubt of Tarso

Tarso once explained, “The greatest question that exists today isn’t whether socialism 'died.' The greatest and true question is, honestly, whether we have ... the possibility of  'another socialism' on the horizon."

Admitting the possibility of the communists taking power, Tarso stated: “Taking a position with regard to this expectation [i.e., the possibility of another socialism] is basic to understanding ... Lula’s government. It is by taking such a position -- by having such a project before us -- that we derive the possibility of accepting a repetition of the totalitarian and bureaucratic experiences of the East."

Tarso knows that the failure of Lula´s government would create "an emergency within a revolutionary crisis." These are Tarso Genro's words, and he is one of the main intellectuals of the PT and secretary of the economic and social development of the government. 

Despite close contact with revolutionary organizations, despite the armed wing of the PT (MST) which occupies a territory equal to five Denmarks, despite a spreading net of doctrinaire communist schools throughout the country, Tarso says that he does not intend to repeat what happened in Eastern Europe. But he knows, and affirms, that there is an enormous risk of a communist dictatorship emerging from the failure of Lula´s government. This willingness to risk the country is a crime. By experimenting with communism his party might easily create a regime of slavery and mass murder. Tarso runs this risk consciously, as do the heads of the government -- but not the people. 

And what if Lula's government succeeds? According to Tarso, there is a “possibility of a socialism with a consensus that subordinates the economy and the market to social politics as it redesigns ... a new and better way of life.” Clearly, if Lula’s government fails a communist dictatorship will be established. If Lula's government succeeds (i.e., socialist utopia is established) we will have the absurdity of "a new type of utopia." 

With regard to that utopia I transcribe the words of the philosopher Olavo de Carvalho: "Each generation of Communists starts by saying that their predecessors had not understood the spirit of communism.... Between hideous failures and macabre successes, this humanity walks: its perpetual 'script' is the revolutionary novel. But it’s okay. What is wrong with millions of corpses as the price for the most fascinating hallucinogenic experience ever invented?"

Return to Main Page