Rejected for the following reason(s):
- No LLM generated, assisted/co-written, or edited work.
- LessWrong has a particularly high bar for content from new users and this contribution doesn't quite meet the bar.
- Looks like you’re crossposting this from your blog elsewhere.
Read full explanation
I wrote this a while back during one of those late-night rabbit holes where you start arguing politics online and suddenly you've written a whole essay. The core question I was trying to work through is pretty simple: how did we get here? How did Brazil end up with Bolsonaro, and why do people keep falling for the "apolitical manager" pitch?
My take is that none of this came out of nowhere. Right-liberal think tanks have been laying the groundwork since the mid-2000s, and the whole Car Wash media circus did a fantastic job of burning people out on politics altogether. Meanwhile, every real gain workers ever got in this country — the CLT, the SUS — came from people literally putting their lives on the line. Nobody at the top ever handed anything over out of goodwill.
I also get into libertarian thought here, because I think there's a fundamental contradiction that doesn't get called out enough: you can't design a world without the state using rules that only exist because of the state. The Non-Aggression Principle[1] sounds great on paper, but it falls apart the moment you have a neighbor breeding dengue mosquitoes in old tires.
It's not a neutral piece — I have a clear perspective — but I tried to be honest about where each side gets it right and where the arguments break down.
Some right-liberal groups have been organizing since at least 2004/2005. Think tanks[2] receiving money from private companies to write articles and hold “libertarian” meetings have been fighting for over a decade. What happened is that Bolsonaro opened the door for the liberal agenda they preach. In this view, authoritarianism was a collateral issue that they could control through Paulo Guedes and the Supreme Court. It didn't work. Bolsonaro is not the result of a sudden growth of a belligerent ideology that formed as a counterpoint to the left; Bolsonaro and all the authoritarianism sweeping the world (Trump, Boris Johnson, Erdogan, and many others) are a reflection of the exhaustion of the social-democratic model of the 90s/00s, the accumulation of wealth by a few, and in Brazil, the liberal Car Wash campaign led by the media that today is horrified by Bolsonaro (FSP, Globo, Estadão).
The left has always needed to be violent to advance an inch in the pursuit of labor rights. The CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws) came about through the deaths of many anarcho-syndicalists in general strikes across this country. The SUS (Unified Health System) only came after many poor people died without care or waiting in line at charities like Santa Casa. The “status quo” does not hand over any slice of power and money without a fight, which is why you will usually see workers having to enter direct confrontation with the Military Police (the armed branch of state repression) to receive transportation vouchers and meal allowances on time.
And this has a name: post-politics.[3]
This type of action ends up strengthening people who feed on the social inequalities of this country (and others) by selling themselves as complete solutions against a symbolic evil. Doria is the prime example of this: the manager who will “end” the problems left by the PT. This common-sense discourse is very affective but not very effective. People will all agree with you if you say that “politicians only think of themselves” because it's more comfortable than thinking that there are alternatives to the current Brazilian sociopolitical system. However, positioning oneself in this way is “extreme” because it challenges the unequal stability that our society has achieved.
Anyway, I think you have a point: ordinary people don't usually embrace causes that can bring them problems (instability) because they have a lot to lose (jobs, income, housing, their own lives) and prefer a life of extreme difficulties but that brings them a minimum stability to at least stay in the same social stratum.
On the other hand, you confuse the political causes and correlations that have brought us to the current moment, creating a false dichotomy between the discourse of the far-left and the Brazilian alt-right. Although the far-left advocates for an armed revolution and a break with the current social structures, it never advocates attacking individual rights such as freedom and the right to life, something that is common in the alt-right, which often reproduces Nazi, racist, and misogynistic aesthetic discourses invoking a supposed “purity” of classical thought (this is Olavo de Carvalho's main point) that would be regained by eliminating the left and its individual values, replacing them with values they deem morally superior (Christianity, TFP, etc.).
I see that there is a paradox in libertarian ideology when the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) is preached for everything because, in issues like this, what is the limit of aggression? You can say “just move” in the case of a neighbor with tires breeding dengue mosquitoes. Or, in the current case of masks, just avoid direct contact with those who are without. In both cases, however, there is a humanitarian dilemma.
Despite this, society (as a social body) has already created a solution for this dilemma: the State. It dictates the minimum rules of social coexistence in normal and extraordinary times and has the monopoly of force to enforce them because, theoretically, physical and legal security should be equal. Private property itself depends on the State for its existence. The private, minimal, or non-existent state that the various strands of libertarian/ancap[4] thought create brings with it various social dilemmas that are only resolved via the State. And for me, this is the problem with all libertarian thought: it starts from a world with a State to imagine a world without a State but using the rules created by that same State.
One of the big mistakes people make when debating libertarian ethics is thinking that libertarians are against all kinds of governance. Libertarians are only against imposed governance.
This is a statement completely devoid of sense or meaning. All governance is imposed. If you open it up to voting, it is an imposition. If you put it in place by merit (whatever the guideline chosen), it is imposed. Any kind of governance, even if it is a council, still is a imposed government.
From Wikipedia: The non-aggression principle (NAP) is a concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited. Interpretations of the NAP vary, particularly concerning issues like intellectual property, force, and abortion.
A think tank or public policy institute is an organization that keeps the power as the power. More on Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia: Post-politics is a term in social sciences used to describe the effects of depoliticisation—a move away from the antagonistic political discourse, empowering unelected technocrats with decisions—in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, when the representative democracies of the post–Cold War era had arguably entered depoliticisation.
Usually people that are self organised to restore the feudalism. More on Wikipedia and here.