Home | About | Donate

"Brazil: Coup or Fiasco?"


"Brazil: Coup or Fiasco?"

Immanuel Wallerstein

The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has been suspended from her office while she goes on trial by the Senate. If convicted, she would be removed from office, which is what is meant in Brazil by "impeachment." Anyone, even Brazilians, who have been trying to follow the last several months of political maneuvering may be excused if they are somewhat confused by the many turns this process has taken.


President Rousseff was once physically tortured by minions of the empire. Now she is being judicially tortured by minions of the empire.
Marx once said something about history repeating itself, first as tragedy then as farce. This is the farce phase.



Thank you Professor Wallerstein for the overview. Since I've never really figured out who is in charge of American foreign policy in the Obama administration, it's hard to "see" how the US figures in these changes; but it is clear to me that a new Clinton administration would be a throw back to the 1980's laissez-faire style of Milton Friedman and "Disaster Capitalism" so well described by Naomi Klein because that is, I'm sure where Hillary's heart is. It would be comforting to think that Brazil is beyond those times but I'm not so sure they are.


This strikes me as an accurate and judicious analysis of the Brazilian situation. At its root are the stranglehold that global capitalism has in world politics. Capitalism's economic and ideological systems severely limit the choices of politicians across the political spectrum. We seem to be approaching a sort of endgame where these structures have created a powerful dependency and at the same time are themselves riven with serious internal weaknesses (as Marx described in detail).
Capitalism is nothing if not innovative--though the "solutions" which as a matter of course include war, environmental crisis, and mass impoverishment are often heinous.


I think all the third world countries have an endemic culture of corruption. It's not something that can be easily overcome. They grow up with an awareness that poverty is wide spread all astound them, and they get into a position where they can grab some for themselves, it seems dumb not to do so. They might at any time get booted out of their position and separated from the opportunity. If they make speeches promising not to be corrupt, to be an honest stewart of the people's money and resist the temptation to steal a little, they learn how easy it is to make such promises, and after all, they're doing good things by doing their duties and the country is better off with them on the job, so nobody should begrudge them taking advantage of whatever temporary opportunities present themselves. The rate of pay is less than is gotten by the entrepreneurial wheeler dealers they must deal with to fulfill their duties, and they feel ashamed to be more impoverished than the people who are socially their colleagues and peers.

I don't know what possible solution there is for this. It is not possible to pay people in those positions enough so hey won't be tempted without inciting jealousies that will ensure that others feel entitled to get some more for themselves and their deserving families. There is at this time to any way to develop an incorruptible public service untrue and class. Tell them they shouldn't do such things and they will wholeheartedly agree and find ways to persuade themselves that what they're doing doesn't count as real dishonest corruption.


Thank you, Mr. Wallerstein. This is the clearest and most comprehensive analysis I've read on the subject.

"The difference between 1980 and now is the degree to which the modern world-system is in structural crisis. The struggle is worldwide and the Brazilian left can either play a major role in it or slip into global irrelevance and national misery."

Another difference is the extent to which the U.S. MIC has planted tentacles all over the world (as military bases), added to the giant Hydra of surveillance services.

The problem is global since global corporations use the muscle of militarism to force their agenda onto the rest of us only maintaining the pretext of Democracy through impotent elections.

When they can't get their puppets into office, they can use devices like that which is being done unto Ms. Rousseff. Not surprising that a hypocrite "Christian Fundamentalist" is tossing the first stone as so NOT in keeping with what Jesus would do.

But the Evangelicals in their righteousness are often first to cast blame and last to establish programs that feed the poor. That's one of the reasons why they team up with the corporate masters so quickly... like Evangelicals backing the likes of Rick Scott and Scott Walker: governors who steal from the poor to hand more to the rich.

The problem is ageless... Mammon and Mars rule


The term should be throwback.

The term through means something else.


indeed. And they don't even have the excuse of having grown up amid third world poverty.


Your "psychological" profile seems to be a smokescreen.

There are quite definite interests--like the military which protects the Brazilian financial elite--that has opposed Rousseff and prior to that, Lula, from the get-go. This is equivalent to the Koch Brothers and the network they fund opposing proponents of anything "New Deal" inside the U.S.

Did you miss this segment of the article's core analysis?

"The PT was founded in 1980 as a party opposed to the military dictatorship that had ruled Brazil since the coup of 1964. It was a socialist, anti-imperialist party, bringing together Marxist groups, large civil associations like the Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT), the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (Landless Workers Movement or MST), and Catholic movements of the liberation theology persuasion.

"From the point of view both of the military and of the traditional Establishment parties in Brazil, the PT was a dangerous revolutionary party, which threatened the conservative economic and social structures of the country. The United States viewed its "anti-imperialism" as directed primarily at the U.S. dominant role in Latin American politics, which indeed it was."

The rightwing interests are usually from more well-to-do families although there always are some turncoats who will do the bidding of their masters. (This would fit the military in any South American or Central American nation.)

Still, to make the dynamic about these turncoats rather than the actual logistics of power is, in my mind, a diversion.


Here's what i just wrote in the "community wealth building" thread:

"... we must dismantle transnational capital as a social, economic, and political force. As phrased in the Mondragon Cooperative Principles, we must enforce "the instrumental and subordinate nature of capital." Capital must be rendered powerless; subordinate to human, social, and ecological imperatives; purely instrumental, simply a tool, in serving the needs of humans, society, and the Earth."

More and more people everywhere have our backs up against the wall, pushed relentlessly by the systemic and structural imperatives of a rampant capital that cannot moderate itself. But the pressure's gotta be released, one way or another.


Brazil was virtually a lawless, backward country outside certain cities along the coast. The failed agrarian reforms and " unlawful taking " of the Amazon forest are good examples of this. It has huge pockets of inequality and poverty because no one had the guts to address the " population bomb ". Unlike China, where Christian religion never really got its' tentacles around the neck of women, Brazil was deep in that European doodoo for centuries. Neo-Liberals want lots of babies as it keeps the consumption levels high and the abundant workforce underemployed and underpaid. The Popes talk a good game but they like to keep women in developing countries pregnant and in the kitchen. When they're not at Mass. Organized religion is a Multi-national Corporation, too. Asian countries, outside of the Philippines and Indonesia ( Muslim ) just don't have this disastrous population problem. India, with over 500 million people still crapping in the street, will implode soon enough, too. Let's just hope they and the Pakistanis ( Muslim ) don't take the world down with them. Screwing us all, so to speak.


Such s biased opinion and article for a complex problem. I guess This professor did NOT talk to most Brazilians who wanted The PT out of governament And banned once and for all from Brazil. I also guess this professor wanted Communism to be established in Brazil just like in Venezuela. We, Brazilians, came very close to becoming another Cuba, Venezuela, Bolívia, El Salvadir, And a few dictatorial countries in Africa. PT is a Communist Party if no one hasn't realized This yet!

If one is to give an opinion and to write an article such as this one, he or she should also talk to the other half like Professir Marcos Villa from University of São Paulo and many other people "in the know" in Brazil. Reporting one side only is NOT only unfair but down right WRONG!

Also, Mrs. Dilma Rousseff stole the last election it is now coming out through investigations. She did not win the elections in 2014 it was a big SCAM!

I am rather distraught in seeing professors and some reporters reporting about Brazil's plight in such an EXTREMELLY biased way.

I guess the US does NOT if Brazil becomes another Communist nation!

A much concerned and angry citizen of Brazil,


Pardon for some typing errors and some forgotten verbs/words.


Your mind is all too easily diverted. It always seems that your first priority is to rebut posts in a way that demonstrates that you are smarter thereby acting as one who works against commonality and working toward a coming together toward possible solutions. The unrelenting argumentativeness is why I have made the accusation, perhaps tongue in cheek, that if there is anyone who acts as a Deep State troll on this site, it would be you. Your posts, whether deliberately meant to do so or not, serve the Establishment by discouraging people from posting, contributing to the inferiority complexes of would be Leftists. I hope that someday you grow past the need to constantly convince yourself that you really are as wordsmart and knowledgeable as you like to present yourself as being, a form of bragging. Do you think that these put downs point the way to changing things for the better?


My first priority is TRUTH. My second is educating those who appear to lack any perspective other than one that seems scripted, all too linear, or otherwise conforms to unexamined components of "group think."

When I see glaring errors I also point them out.

That some people are so insecure as to personalize a correction that might improve their writing is THEIR problem, not mine.

What's also fascinating is that as a Feminist and one of mystical leanings, there is nothing in my belief system that would make for a troll.

On the other hand, the soldier boys who always post first each morning and have no regular day jobs certainly fit the bill.

I've pointed out--and this comes straight out of the important book, "Dangerous Dossiers" by Herbert Mitgang, that the spooks have lousy spelling and grammar skills.

Since today's communication venues are full of spooks (and/or low-level spies working for the Big Surveillance State as exposed by Edward Snowden), it's interesting that they always reinforce a narrative that equates the military with the citizenry, and that they love to bash everyday voters/citizens/Americans/human nature; and that they often sound alike and reinforce each other's comments.

In other words, they're probably the gooks and spooks of yesterday... now live and in color.

Those who oppose my speaking "out of frame" by mentioning sexism and misogyny, along with those rigid pro-science types who can't stomach any discussions about UFOs, reincarnation, spirituality, mysticism, added to those who push Official Narratives at the expense of evidence (and truth) have cause to demonize me.

Naturally, you're part of the club.

Rather than gracefully admit your error and improve your writing, you accuse me of being that which you and your tag team pals likely are.

That happens on a regular basis.

And a narrow-minded thinker is HARDLY in any position to determine where my mind is at, at any given time. What impossible arrogance!

How many other screen names have you used here? (That's a rhetorical question... most of your tag team enjoy hiding behind a long list.)


Ah, The Queen of Truth. Most people have their own truth and many are aware that individual perceptions are affected by their personal pasts and biases. Not you who professes to believe that your truth is the only real true truth and any deviation from your point of view deserves the put downs you deliver because not to think exactly like you is an affront to The Real Truth, An ego that overgrown is untouchable and resistant to other points of view. So I will let you be and will say no more. You'll know, if there are any holes in your ego defenses, that to me you are a joke and your Truth works against the things you pretend to believe because you are too impressed with your conception of yourself, and I won't ask again about the use of the word Sioux in your posting handle. I shall say no more.


nicely done Siouxrose11