The meme became a trend on social media: a psychoanalyst asks the patient, lying on a couch, if the imaginary entity that terrifies him is present in the room. I’ve been reminded of this image whenever I hear someone argue with the bogeyman of socialism.
relied on criticism of socialism as a pillar of his political rhetoric to attack his Democratic opponents. Not even the very moderate escaped, as if he were the reincarnation of Stalin, always carrying Karl Marx’s “Capital” under his arm and wanting to send enemies to the Gulag. From healthcare to the environmental pact, Trump cataloged everything as socialist and communist ideas.
In Brazil, Bolsonaro also made antisocialism a central axis of his communication strategy.
In his inauguration speech in 2019, he said that that was “the day when the people began to free themselves from socialism”, referring to him and his leader.
The problem is that , who identifies himself as a “democratic socialist”, has never governed as a socialist in the classical definition of the term, a pre-communist stage, which implies the defense of the break with capitalism, central planning of the economy and nationalization of the means of production.
From the outside, Lula is clearly a center-left politician, who aligns himself with social democratic ideals, promotes the market economy and defends social justice through redistributive social policies.
The strategy was successful and, as expected, the self-declared anarcho-capitalist used this guide and chose socialism as the public enemy to be defeated.
Now, in the presidential race in Portugal, the same argument is repeated ad nauseam. Right-wing radical André Ventura says he is fighting an existential battle against socialism — and that “socialism kills”. A hallucination: his opponent is so centered, moderate and conciliatory that many criticize him for being “the left that the right likes”.
Socialism, the favorite insult of the moment, is a bottomless sack into which everything vaguely humanist can be thrown. Do you want to raise the minimum wage or pensions? Socialist. Better school and public health? Look at the socialist! Are you concerned about inequality, human rights, racism? Dangerous socialist!
In English, there is a name for this strategy — it’s called “red-baiting”. It has no adherence to reality, but it makes an impact. It is the logical fallacy of the “Reductio ad Stalinum”: it aims to discredit the validity of an opponent’s logical argument by accusing him of being a Marxist, socialist or Stalinist.
The same is true for the other side of the political spectrum, mind you (it’s the “Reductio ad Hitlerum”). The concept of fascism is difficult to fulfill, because it goes far beyond nationalism with authoritarianism, and many populist but not extremist right-wingers are immediately classified as such.
We live in a time when facts don’t matter, lies are greedy, and concepts are melted down to the stage where they can be molded. But if we don’t understand each other about the names of things and what they represent, we will never be able to have a serious discussion about values and democracy.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
