4 ms·

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 a

by borski 4y ago

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?

matheusmoreira 4y ago
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.
- borski 4y ago
  You’re welcome to link to them and allow us to judge for ourselves! :)
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    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 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?
    - jemmyw 4y ago
      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.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        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 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_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.
        jemmyw 4y ago
        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.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > 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-altera-trechos-polemicos-do-plano-de-direitos-humanos.html 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.

by borski 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

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.

borski 4y ago
You’re welcome to link to them and allow us to judge for ourselves! :)
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  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 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?
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    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.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      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 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_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.
      - jemmyw 4y ago
        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.
        matheusmoreira 4y ago
        > 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-altera-trechos-polemicos-do-plano-de-direitos-humanos.html 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.