4 ms·

I definitely like that film, especially the acting and the music, but I think that, as with most material that covers that era (arts, history, journalism), it f

by forinti 7mo ago

I definitely like that film, especially the acting and the music, but I think that, as with most material that covers that era (arts, history, journalism), it focuses on the middle and the upper classes. The poor get a footnote: what happened to Zezé? But the poor were the biggest losers of the dictatorship. It was at the precise moment that the country needed to modernise that the coup made everything stop and the favelas grew along with violence in the periphery. Maybe City of God is a better depiction of what the dictatorship meant.

marcosdumay 7mo ago
It's just now starting to become common knowledge that the military dictatorship didn't industrialize Brazil. On most circles, saying that it deindustrialized the country will surprise every single person, and get immediately rejected as false by a large share. Propaganda is a hell of a thing. We are not even close to start that discussion, so it mostly won't appear anywhere.
- expedition32 7mo ago
  Reminds me of the dictatorship in Suriname in the 1980s. It was not about ideology. The military was just corrupt- they even did business with drug cartels. Generals can't fix the economy they can only use violence and repression.
- kranke155 7mo ago
  The Brazilian dictatorship did both. Just like the rest of Latin América they lost it all to high interest rates in the 70s and 80s. They lost so they quit.
  - marcosdumay 7mo ago
    You mean it first industrialized and then deindustrialized the country? Because if so, not really. Most of their industrializing policies had the opposite effect. What they really achieved was to reduce the industrialization pace to snail-speed, and then to turn it negative. On the first half, it was not for lack of trying, though. It was just for lack of competence.
    - kranke155 7mo ago
      You’re wrong and I can quote a number of economic histories to show so. The industrialisation push in Latin America was successful - to a degree. It followed the UN plans for developing a country under the Bretton Woods system. And it worked. But all that work was unwound by the Nixon shock and then the Volcker shock. The only way to develop a major industrial economy under the Western system post 1945 seems to have been - be a reliable and essential US ally - be given privileges to survive the occasional systemic shock. “Kicking away The Ladder” and “How Asia Works” are good books about this. That was true of Nixon-Volcker and it was true of 2008-COVID periods. The truth is that under the dollar monetary zone the rules are what they are, until they get changed. Those who survive relatively unscathed are generally given a permissive path to do so.

by forinti 7mo ago

marcosdumay 7mo ago

It's just now starting to become common knowledge that the military dictatorship didn't industrialize Brazil. On most circles, saying that it deindustrialized the country will surprise every single person, and get immediately rejected as false by a large share. Propaganda is a hell of a thing. We are not even close to start that discussion, so it mostly won't appear anywhere.

expedition32 7mo ago
Reminds me of the dictatorship in Suriname in the 1980s. It was not about ideology. The military was just corrupt- they even did business with drug cartels. Generals can't fix the economy they can only use violence and repression.
kranke155 7mo ago
The Brazilian dictatorship did both. Just like the rest of Latin América they lost it all to high interest rates in the 70s and 80s. They lost so they quit.
- marcosdumay 7mo ago
  You mean it first industrialized and then deindustrialized the country? Because if so, not really. Most of their industrializing policies had the opposite effect. What they really achieved was to reduce the industrialization pace to snail-speed, and then to turn it negative. On the first half, it was not for lack of trying, though. It was just for lack of competence.
  - kranke155 7mo ago
    You’re wrong and I can quote a number of economic histories to show so. The industrialisation push in Latin America was successful - to a degree. It followed the UN plans for developing a country under the Bretton Woods system. And it worked. But all that work was unwound by the Nixon shock and then the Volcker shock. The only way to develop a major industrial economy under the Western system post 1945 seems to have been - be a reliable and essential US ally - be given privileges to survive the occasional systemic shock. “Kicking away The Ladder” and “How Asia Works” are good books about this. That was true of Nixon-Volcker and it was true of 2008-COVID periods. The truth is that under the dollar monetary zone the rules are what they are, until they get changed. Those who survive relatively unscathed are generally given a permissive path to do so.