Your comment is not really backed by any fact or reference of any “dictatorship”, so it’s only based on conspiracy theories…

Conspiracy theory? Censorship equals dictatorship. It's that simple.

I’m not saying you’re dealing in conspiracy theories, as I think that’s aggressive and irrelevant, but:

That’s not quite true; Germany censors tons of speech, and nobody would ever call them a dictatorship. Same is true for the UK and plenty of other countries, where the press is definitely “managed” and people can get thrown in jail for the things they say.

Censorship is one aspect of dictatorship, but not all censorship implies dictatorship.

I stand corrected and like this explanation about censorship, will use that from now on.

Unfortunately you guys did not have an alternative candidate, which I was rooting for.

Lula had his time, when the world was a lot different.

Anyway, I hope he doesn’t tank the beautiful country and full of potential Brasil is.

Tamos juntos!

> Unfortunately you guys did not have an alternative candidate, which I was rooting for.

I agree with you. I don't really support Bolsonaro, I wish we had better candidates. I'm just so sad to see this communist become president again.

> communist

Sorry, this is just the kind of exaggerated rhetoric that made the situation to become polarised like this.

I really encourage you to stop propagating this kind of nonsense.

Exaggerated? Do you want me to post the video of him saying his objective is the installation of socialism in Brazil? The one they said was fake news? Are you going to claim the decades old video is fabricated?

I really encourage you not to reply to me again.

Genuine question: is it possible he changed his mind? Lots of people said things decades ago that they felt was true or good at the time, but over time people are allowed to change their opinions and learn, right?

What is to say that hasn’t happened to Lula?

I have relatively recent videos of him talking with his communist guru about his own age and his desire for a last revolution before he dies. In the same video, he talks about how the government should confiscate people's inheritance so they can't accumulate money. "The state should determine what people need to survive", he said. "If you need shoes, the state will give you shoes; if you need a rural property, the state will give you one".

I think these videos are not even a couple years old. While it is theoretically possible that he changed his mind, I wouldn't bet on it.

You’re welcome to link to them and allow us to judge for ourselves! :)

Sure, it's right here. I'll translate quotes more accurately directly from his speech now. In my last post, I was quoting him from my own memory.

https://youtu.be/HzAr4WpYAow?t=2884

> Human beings must understand that they have limitations.

> We have to define what each of us needs.

> Let's write a theory on what human beings need to survive.

> Does he need a car? Okay, he'll have a car.

> Does he need a beach house? Okay, he'll have a beach house.

> Does he need a rural home? Okay, he'll have a rural home.

> Three pairs of shoes? Okay.

> It gets to a point where he no longer has needs, so he shouldn't accumulate money.

> What is someone going to store 130 billions of dollars for?

> What is he going to do? When he dies?

> Let some parasites who never worked keep the money?

> While the people are hungry?

I mean, what he says isn't untrue. Past a certain point the accumulation of wealth is negative, a point that most people will never reach. And many countries have inheritance tax that's not a communist thing... After all, you wouldn't need it in a communist system.

What he says is literal communist ideology. This is clear the second he starts defining his theory of what people "need" to survive and implying the state should provide them no more and no less than that. This is compounded by his idea that families working hard to accumulate wealth over generations is "parasitism". In other public appearances, he also said things like the middle class is "ostentatious" for having a better life than what's strictly necessary to survive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

> This distinction can be observed in Marx's communism, where the distribution of products is based on the principle of "to each according to his needs"

> As the productive forces continued to advance, the communist society, i.e. a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership, follows the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

> Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

So perhaps he is personally communist but his policies are social democratic? I'm not communist but I do agree with the part about inheritance tax to combat wealth accumulating more and more wealth and power. It just doesn't work that well because of the wealth power thing going on there.

> So perhaps he is personally communist but his policies are social democratic?

Certainly seems to be the case everyone who voted for him was hoping for but I don't think so. He's already tried this communist stuff in previous mandates. Check out this "human rights" plan his party tried to push in 2009-2010:

https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2010/05/presidente-alt...

Relativization of private property: you own land, someone invades your land and settles on it and you're forced to "mediate" with the invaders before being afforded access to the justice system. Regulation of all media and communications, censorship in case of "abuse" and even a government ranking of media channels based on how much they conform to "human rights". Prohibition of religious symbols in public. Taxation of fortunes because entrepreneurship in Brazil apparently wasn't difficult enough.

Even the media that supported him now used to criticize him harshly for this, to the point he backed down. I think they were all hoping he'd be the "moderate, reasonable" Lula who backs down once again but why would he back down now? He's old, cancerous and with pretty much nothing to lose. I saw prominent figures regret supporting him before he even took power.

He's gonna do the same thing again. It's probably his last chance to create the socialist Brazil he always wanted. He was already developing this agenda even before he took power and this time he's gonna succeed because he's got supreme court judges backing him. Congress and senate are powerless, the supreme court can just determine anything it wants and it becomes de facto law. I saw those judges talk about relativization of private property during the election, they even used that exact word.

After leaving jail, Lula talked many times about how much he regretted not regulating the media when he had the chance and how it's one of the very first things he's gonna do once in power. It was hilarious to see the press support a president that says stuff like this.

Is this all there is? Because this sounds more or less reasonable, if a bit naive, and a far cry from "the government will decide whether you need shoes."

It's so anodyne, you could have titled it with "CNN interviews Pope Francis," and people would have believed it.

> Is this all there is?

"All there is?" This is communist speech and ideology. Don't minimize it. See my other reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34214909

> a far cry from "the government will decide whether you need shoes."

Are you sure? This is a president that decades ago openly stated his objective was the slow installation of socialism in Brazil. Then the possiblity that he had changed his mind since then was raised. I presented to you a two year old video of him defending basic communist ideology. He hasn't changed his mind.

Do you have any doubt at all that this guy wants a communist government that decides such things for its citizens?

Socialism and communism are not really the same thing, just to clarify, FYI.

> Socialism and communism are not really the same thing

Seriously, dude?

> Seriously, dude?

Yes, but more importantly, many in Brazil are not really aware of their privileges and the biggest challenge of this presidency will be trying to reduce inequalities, despite being a cause that many - as seen in this commenting thread - don’t support and simply label as “communism”.

But Lula got arrested by the judiciary, right? How do you reconcile that with what you're saying?

He was judged guilty by lower court judges. Supreme court judges who support Lula essentially erased his crimes. They went on to implement literal censorship before, during and after the elections, making a mockery of our constitution.

I expect the persecution to get worse.

So the Supreme Court judges are corrupt because they pointed to problems in the process that warranted a mistrial, ultimately favoring the candidate you don’t like. But the lower court judges are guaranteed to be neutral because they convicted Lula. Right.

You don’t realize, but your bias is showing, kid.

The judges who trashed years of serious investigations because of some bullshit jurisdiction technicality, allowed the corrupt leader of the most scandalous party in the country to run for president and did everything in their power to get him elected? Yeah, just looking out for proper due process. Absolutely.

Bias? I don't give a shit, "kid". Do you have any idea what it feels like to have a president you know is a criminal rule over you? It's one thing to suspect, it's another thing to know. And he will rule over us, regardless of elected congress or senate, because the supreme court judges will force whatever law he wants into effect. Do you have any idea what it feels like to watch videos of prisoners cheering and drug traffickers celebrating with gunfire after his victory?

> Do you have any idea what it feels like to have a president you know is a criminal rule over you?

Yes, actually, we had 4 years of it from 2016-2020, and it came very close to not ending when he lost the 2020 election but never conceded.

Bolsonaro did concede. He immediately gave his greenlight to an orderly transition of power pursuant to the Constitution, which amounts to conceding wrt. the result.

I agree. I was referring to the US, as the parent was asking if anyone had experience living under a president they knew were a criminal, even if it hadn’t been officially proven, and my assumption was they meant “outside Brazil.”

He was talking about Trump.

Not really sure which videos are those. The only thing I see is a desperate attemp to argue in favour of Bolsonaro’s disastrous goverment with all the “far-right whatsapp” playbook.

> Not really sure which videos are those.

Of course not. You want me to post them or something? I had links, they were all taken down but I saved them.

> The only thing I see is a desperate attemp to argue in favour of Bolsonaro’s disastrous goverment with all the “far-right whatsapp” playbook.

I don't even support Bolsonaro. I just don't support your president either.

To be fair, those right wing influencers called for the military to stage a coup and oust the democratically elected president...

No, the censorship came way before that. Way before the election. I saw them censor a documentary preventively. Somehow, they "knew" it was "fake news" before it was even released.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/world/americas/brazil-onl...

But the documentary was from a left-wing source and claimed that Bolsanaro faked his own stabbing in 2018 in order to bolster public support. It hardly seems that the decision to censor that "documentary" was made to favor Lula.

"See? Proof that Bolsonaro is a real 4d chess player!"

I have no idea what's in that documentary to be honest. Not sure if it's pro-Lula or pro-Bolsonaro. All I know is they preventively censored it. Not even the military dictatorship of decades past preventively censored material. Censorship is unconstitutional but it's not like these judges care.

If you have no idea what the documentary was about then how do you know preventing its release was unconstitutional? Countries all over the world "censor" material they deem to be libellous.

Censorship is always unconstitutional.