October 10, 2017

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights: The missing stories, Monia Mazigh, October 10, 2017

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights: The missing stories, Monia Mazigh, Alternet, October 10, 2017

Many stories involving the West — including Guantanamo, the Nakba and the Algerian war — should be represented at CMHR

Last week I was in Winnipeg, invited by the Winnipeg International Writers Festival (Thin Air) to speak about my latest novel: Hope Has Two Daughters.
As part of my others activities for the same festival, I was asked to speak at the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. Last time I was in the city, the museum wasn’t open for the public yet, though I heard back then that some private tours were being scheduled for special guests. Obviously, I was not special enough to be one of them, so I decided that next time I would visit the museum and get to know more about its exhibitions and galleries.
In my talk, I spoke about the link between my work as a writer and as a human rights advocate. I spoke about what happened to my husband Maher Arar; the U.S. government’s extraordinary rendition program that he was victim of; the physical and psychological torture he endured while detained in the Palestinian Branch in Syria, his country of birth; the dangers of information sharing between intelligence agencies in a post 9/11 world where torture has became banal (or, to say the least, “justified”); and, of course, the role of Canadian institutions in this terrible ordeal.
As someone who trained to become a financial economics professor, I spoke about how writing came to me as a tool of activism, of justice-seeking, but (most of all) of understanding and analyzing the new global order we are living in, particularly the national security agenda pushed by the U.S. and many other countries.
I also insisted on the importance of storytelling as a powerful medium for many oppressed communities to share their struggles with other privileged groups.
In this context, as a Muslim woman who has to daily fight Islamophobia and is constantly confronted by national security policies, writing remains for me the best and only means to oppose stereotypes and these policies without necessarily victimizing myself, but rather, resisting them and liberating myself from cowardice and a sense of helplessness.
Following my talk, I tried to take a quick tour of the museum. I have to say that the great architecture of the place — shaped creatively like the wings of a dove — gives it a majestic feel that can counterbalance some of the heavy stories I was going to see exhibited.
In a short period, I couldn’t render justice to the entire seven floors of exhibits, artefacts, and interactive multi-media videos, thousands of documents, pictures and poignant and beautiful stories told through pictures and of pieces of arts. In my rush, I might have missed important things. Nevertheless, one of the most important issues I was eager to read about in this museum was the “war on terror.” I wanted to see how this ongoing war was handled and told. I consider my husband and my whole family as survivors of this war, that former American President Georges W. Bush qualified as “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” 
I really wanted to know more about the “ghost planes” documented by the journalist Stephen Grey in his book with the same title. Exactly like my husband was transported from New Jersey to Amman, Jordan. Perhaps even thinking of seeing a picture of these planes. I wanted to see the name of some of the American private companies who operated them, such as Aero Contractors based in New Jersey, as well. I was also expecting to see images of the Metropolitan Correctional Centre in Manhattan where my husband was kept there and many others prisoners of the war on terror.  A place that the political writer Arun Kundani described as “the Guantanamo in New York you’re not allowed to know about.”
This is a place where Human Rights Watch described the treatment of the Muslim suspects detained there in the following words: “subjected to punitive conditions, held in solitary confinement, and subjected to security measures typically reserved for dangerous persons. Most were let out of their cells only one hour per day. Although material witnesses have a right to counsel, including court-appointed counsel if necessary, some in fact did not have access to counsel.” 
I was hoping to see pictures of Guantanamo inmates in orange jumpsuits surrounded by the barbed wires, not because they were a powerful reminder of the fragility of our human rights and that despite the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by several countries after the atrocities of the Second World War, more abuses are being conducted today on other groups of people without any possibility of accountability or due process.
While I was circulated on the astonishing ramps made of alabaster and feeling being literally transported in the air from one floor to another and from one struggle to another, I thought of my own struggle, knocking on politicians doors, speaking to journalists, organizing vigils in the bitter Canadian cold with other human rights activists, and speaking to media to push Canadian politicians to bring my husband home. I thought of these longs hours I spent in front of the computer, after my young children went to bed, desperately trying to surf the Internet for names of journalists or human rights organizations to cover the story of my husband. I remembered those years between 2004 and 2006 when the public inquiry was taking place and the national and international media attention that followed us all the way to our doors. I thought of the thousands of pages written by Justice O’Connor and his legal counsel Paul Cavaluzzo to understand what really happened to Maher Arar, what led to his arrest by the U.S. and his subsequent torture in the Syrian dungeon.
Seeing some these documents exposed in one of the galleries of the museum or the remarkable recommendations by Justice O’Connor being showcased would have made my trip there a personal proud moment that to share with my family and friend, but also a terrific Canadian victory of justice over arbitrariness and discrimination.
But I was clearly dreaming. Nothing of the sort was exhibited or even mentioned. No images, no press clips, no information about the black hole prisons network that swallowed the victims of renditions keeping them hidden underneath and tortured, not a single mention about the horrific treatment of Guantanamo prisoners like the waterboarding. Nothing.
Among this shameful desert of lack of information, I finally saw a newspaper picture. One that I have never seen before, showing people holding signs “Justice to Maher Arar” with the following interesting description “Maher Arar supporters, around 2008. The Canadian government has apologized to Arar, a Canadian citizen, for not protecting him from torture in Syria”. Not a single word about Canada’s role or any other similar Canadian cases of Al Maati, Al Malki and Nurredin. The picture probably taken from an American paper, threw the responsibility ball to U.S. and Syrian camps.
No picture of Guantanamo, not a word about Omar Khadr, another victim of the war on terror, and the incredible work his Canadian lawyer Dennis Edney has been doing and all the work of Canadians activists, filmmakers and human rights groups who supported the cause until the end.
I simply can’t understand these missing stories. Is it a deliberate act of self-amnesia? Is it politically motivated? I don’t know.
But certainly, Canadians have all the right to know and understand these missing stories. Human rights are not only stories that we can choose depending on our likes or political affiliations or religious affinities. For example, today, it is politically safe to criticize and hit upon countries like Iran, or Russia and North Korea. They came to represent the “evil”, the “other”, that is the total opposite of what our liberal values incarnate like democracy, and freedom of association and of religion…
But how about some of our friend or allies countries, for instance the U.S. or Israel or France. Don’t they have big skeletons in their closets? Guantanamo, the Nakba, the Algerian war? Aren’t these shameful historic moments that our children and grandchildren should learn about in an honest and transparent way?
So far the Canadian Museum of Human Rights has missed some of these stories.

October 04, 2017

Automation and Basic Income: beyond the hype by David Bush


September 29, 2017 Written by David Bush Published in Analysis



Basic Income is not a beyond left and right answer to automation, argues David Bush

Those that advocate for Basic Income (BI) often point to the impending automated future as a reason that BI is necessary. Capitalists, they argue, will be replacing jobs with machines at such a high rate that BI will be the only method to ensure the vast amounts of displaced workers can earn an income.

There is a grain of truth to this argument, as Harry Braverman notes in his classic study of the labour process, “Marx points out that generals win their wars by recruiting armies, captains of industry win theirs by discharging armies.” But the technological determinism of those arguing that automation leads to mass unemployment, rests upon an inaccurate reading of how capitalism operates.

The labour theory of value

To make any judgement about the plausibility of full automation it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the basic inner workings of capitalism. Essentially one has to have a theory that can answer at least these two basic questions: Where do profits come from and why do capitalists utilize labour saving devices? Looking at the labour process itself helps to answer these questions.
Workers enter the labour market because they need food, shelter, clothing and other basic necessities. They do not have the ability to attain these things by any method other than selling their ability to work.
Employers hire workers for their ability to work for a given wage in a given period of time. The value of what workers produce at work is more than the value they are paid by employers. This surplus value produced by workers is the ultimate source of profits.
The competitive nature of capitalism requires businesses to vie for market share to survive. Capitalists aim to increase their market share by cutting costs and maximizing their return on investment. Inside the workplace this means capitalists will try to squeeze more productive work from workers for less.

Technology as discipline

Capitalists organize the workplace to convert workers’ time into productive energy. This is done by controlling the knowledge of work skills, organizing the flow and pace of work, and increasing oversight. The continual introduction of technology into the workplace is one of the best methods to achieve these aims.
Machines and tools enable workers to increase their output by making certain job tasks easier. It also allows management a greater ability to ratchet up the pace and oversight of work. As Braverman notes, “machinery offers management the opportunity to do by wholly mechanical means that which it had previously attempted to do by organizational and disciplinary means.”
It is important that we conceptually understand technology and labour saving devices as a form of labour discipline. Technology under capitalism is not merely just a bunch of cool stuff, like robots or computers. Technologies are things with a purpose in relation to labour. Management uses machines to dictate the pace of work and to deskill labour, separating the conception and execution of job tasks. The increased use of effective technology leads to increased output and a lowering of unit prices.

Automation and the logic of capitalism

The mechanization in a given industry means the replacement of human labour. This has a number of different consequences within capitalism. Individual businesses will employ fewer workers, have higher outputs and lower unit costs. So long as they have a technological edge, companies can increase their rate of profit even as they increase the amount of fixed capital costs relative to workers.
This technology allows them to squeeze out more value from each worker in a given period of time. But when a labour saving technology becomes generalized in a sector, and prices fall, the firm’s profit rate will depreciate. The company will be saddled with more fixed costs relative to labour, with the capacity to have higher output levels.
The reason for this is that all machines are fixed capital, the machine’s potential value to the firm is paid in advance. Highly capitalized firms are able to compete on a bigger level, but run the risk of having their capital investment superseded by competitors using a superior technology (imagine investing in a series of highly efficient pneumatic tubes just before the internet). There is also a risk that the market may experience an excess of a given product and the business owner will be faced with idle machinery that it cannot get rid off.
There are countervailing tendencies to all of this. As firms deskill labour and replace workers with machines this can create larger and larger pools of workers who are looking for work (in the context of globalized production chains, the vast pool of labour can extend beyond national borders). This puts downward pressure on the price of labour and encourages firms to hire cheap labour, and put off costly and risky investments in machines.
There is of course another added dimension to mechanization, it is not simply that workers are thrown out of work, but the automation of work creates new avenues of employment (often highly skilled work). Workers are needed to build, design, program, transport, tend to and service machines. Automation itself births a new industry that requires workers. Human labour remains at the centre of mechanization, a point many frequently forget.
Machines are the product of human labour and intelligence. When machines are introduced into a workplace, it is more accurate to conceptualize this as an outsourcing of labour than it is to see it only as a worker being replaced by a machine. Behind the vast layers of robots, machines, tools and code lies the human labour that created all of it.

Artificial Intelligence

Automation, even at its most advanced level, has not altered the basic premise of capitalist social relations. Humans are still the only input able to create new value. Humans have a unique and unrivalled set of physical and mental skills that are not simply better than any automated system has produced, but are of a different order.
Efforts to create Artificial Intelligence (AI) have come nowhere close to producing the complexities, nuances and imagination of the human mind. Even the most advanced machines on the planet are conceptually no different than the original Turing Machine, only able to complete a set of pre-programmed tasks (even learning machines are limited in what and how they can write new code).
Within the tech industry there are two broad categories of AI, weak and strong. Weak AI refers to computing systems, which can make decisions within a narrow pre-programmed framework. Machine learning, where computers can learn and write new code would be an example of this, but so would basic computational programs in cars, planes and cellphones. There have been notable advances in this field in recent years, but they have had surprisingly narrow application in the economy.
Strong AI, which could be something either like human intelligence or a machine that is capable of learning beyond pre-programmed limitations, remains theoretical. Computers have essential become faster at taking in and processing data (although the rate at which processing speeds are advancing is slowing significantly).
In the field of robotics, building models to do physical human tasks like walking into a room and making a bed are still along way off. But minus a breakthrough in Strong AI, robots, no matter how advanced, remain simply machines. Marx’s basic description of a machine in relation to human labour remains as relevant for a steam engine as it does for the most advanced computer:
“The machine proper is therefore a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same operations that were formerly done by the workman with similar tools. Whether the motive power is derived from man, or from some other machine, makes no difference in this respect. From the moment that the tool proper is taken from man, and fitted into a mechanism, a machine takes the place of a mere implement. The difference strikes one at once, even in those cases where man himself continues to be the prime mover.”

The problem with the full automation thesis

As I noted earlier machines are, simply put, human labour crystallized as a fixed cost. They can help speed-up production, make workers work more efficiently and increase output by doing pre-programed job tasks, but they cannot create new value.
On the firm level, once technology advances are generalized in an industry, the competitive advantage a firm has disappears. The firm is left with less human labour and more fixed costs, this tends to lower the rate of profit. As Michael Roberts explains:
“Over time, a capital-bias or labour shedding means less new value is created (as labour is the only form of value) relative to the cost of invested capital. There is a tendency for profitability to fall as productivity rises.  In turn, that leads eventually to a crisis in production that halts or even reverses the gain in production from the new technology. This is solely because investment and production depend on the profitability of capital in our modern mode of production.”
The flow of capital will shift from low to high areas of return on investment. Major investments will be pursed in newly developing industries and areas that often employ many workers. Just look at the phenomenal growth happening in the healthcare sector of the economy. As in all industries in capitalism, newly created ones will be pushed down the path of uneven mechanization. The capital necessary for the investments in this mechanization is ultimately derived from exploitation of workers.

The productivity problem

The narrative that we need BI because of impending mass automation and mass unemployment, while overblown does touch on two important issues. Will the rate of new employment being created in newly developing sectors of the economy be roughly equal to the rate at which people are losing their jobs due to automation?
And is the dearth of productive investment a passing phase of global capitalism or does it point to something more structural? Will the sustained low profit rates that have lead many capitalists to simply sit on large swaths of cash or drive it into financial speculation continue, and if so for how long?
Currently, North America is experiencing record low rates of productivity growth. The period from 2005 – 2016 is by far and away the lowest it has been in the United States since 1947 (the first year of comparable data). In the manufacturing sector, which utilizes more advanced technology, the numbers are even lower.
Robert Gordon notes that the productivity bump precipitated by the Internet revolution was mostly confined to the period of 1996 to 2004. Businesses restructured their organizations and business patterns to take advantage of these newly formed web technologies (the reduced prices in semi-conductors also helped). But once businesses reorganized to adopt the new technological breakthroughs, further gains in productivity became marginal. As a 2014 study in the American Economic Review noted:
“there is also little evidence of faster productivity growth in IT-intensive industries after the late 1990s. Second and more importantly, to the extent that there is more rapid growth of labor productivity [referring to the 2008 -2010 period] this is associated with declining output and even more rapidly declining employment.”
Some like Ryan Avent, an editor at the Economist, argue that low productivity and high levels of employment does not mean we aren’t in a period of rapid technological progress. He argues that low economic growth discourages investments in labour saving technology, as labour costs are relatively low. Avent fails to see that this is precisely the point. The relationship between technology and its application is determined by the needs of capital.

The relationship between automation and profits

New technology is being generated and utilized in all businesses. But the marginal return on investment is painfully slow, which helps explain the relatively low levels of business investment. This in part reflects the excess of productive capacity that all ready exists in many sectors. Why invest in efficiencies in steel, mining or chemical sectors if you already have unused productive capacity?
A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows industrial robots have depressed wages and replaced workers is cited by many to argue that automation will result in mass unemployment. It concludes that every new robot added in manufacturing to a given commuting zone reduces employment by 5.6 workers. This study is treated as game changer in the debate over automation and its impact on work. However, its results essentially confirm what one would expect. That in a period of high productivity growth, the study takes place between 1990 – 2007, workers would be displaced in given geographic areas as companies reorganized and ramped up their use of labour saving devices. Productivity increases and the adoption of labour saving technology after 2007 drop off a cliff, because over-capacity in the manufacturing sector along with sluggish economic growth discouraged new investments. The authors mistakenly predict future rates of job losses and the rate of the implementation of robots using a period of high productivity growth as the baseline.
The technology that is cutting edge, such as advances in computational intelligence and robotics for the most part remain highly niche. Of course advances in areas such as driverless cars will in all likelihood shake up the transportation sector, but it is impossible to know exactly when and how that will play out. Will job loss be sudden and sweeping in the sector or will that technology be slowly integrated, like navigational systems on planes? What if any applicability does driverless technology have for other sectors of the economy? What new jobs will this technological advance create?
There has been a tendency to treat speculation about the introduction of labour saving technology into every facet of the labour market as a given. Employers, right-wing commentators, and those in the tech sector having been beating the drum about how automation will sweep through all industries, especially the service sector.

Automation in the service sector

Automation in the service sector is more complicated than most commentators are making it out to be. The narrative is that increasing wages in the sector will precipitate the rise of automation, which will displace large swaths of workers in the industry. This narrative is used by the right-wing to argue against wage increases. Parts of the Left have latched onto this as well, saying it is the reason BI is needed.
Nowhere is this argument more present than in the fast-food industry. Its highly taylorized job tasks and deskilled workforce make it the prime candidate for full automation with self-serve kiosks displacing thousands of workers. The reality of this prediction is somewhat different.
Automated kiosks in the industry remain quite expensive ($120,000 to $160,000 per McDonald’s franchise). Even if labour costs rise and the cost of the technology falls there is little evidence that kiosks will reduce total working hours. For many large fast-food chains a huge source of their business comes from drive-thru (McDonalds gets 70 percent of its business via drive-thru). The installation of expensive kiosks will not apply to the vast majority of patrons.
Where kiosks have been implemented it simply shifts labour to the back end of the restaurant. Kiosks take orders faster (people also tend to order more food via the machine), but that just puts more strain on the kitchen staff, and in the end necessitates shifting labour around to accommodate the new workload in the kitchen. Some restaurants that are using kiosks are shifting labour from front-end order takers to implementing table service. Kiosks are susceptible to vandalism and misuse and this still require workers to assist customers.
Self-checkout machines in grocery stores, which have existed for well over 15 years have not seen wide-scale implementation. The machines remain relatively costly in relation to their performance. They still require human minders to assist people. They also create the need for more oversight to discourage shoplifting. In the vast majority of stores where they exist they are part of a mixed check-out system.
Studies have shown in more complicated self-checkout processes (grocery stores as opposed to banks or buying movie tickets) that automation is not reducing wait times nor proving faster than regular checkouts. This is because complex automated self-checkout systems aren’t reducing the labour required in the process, they are simply shifting it to the customer.
Self-service machines for simple functions will see wider adoption, but where they have been implemented in fast-food and other parts of the service sector there is little evidence to suggest kiosks are leading to the doom and gloom scenario of mass unemployment. Many jobs in the service sector involve the performance of emotional labour (by making customers feeling happy, listened to, and valued) or intricate physical tasks. For these jobs, the risk of automation replacing human labour is extremely low.
There is of course the prospect that grocery and retail stores could be totally reorganized. Amazon is looking brick and mortar retail where you take items and remove them and then are automatically billed via your phone. But this requires a level of customer integration into the system that would, for now, only cater to very niche upscale markets.

The hype machine

What we can say is that current narrative around automation and the jobless economy is driven by a lot of hype. This hype is not neutral, it is the structural product of how the tech industry operates. Start-ups and mid-sized companies overinflate their technological promises and innovations in order to attract large chunks investment capital (capital which is struggling to find suitable returns on investment).
Take Uber, for example. They are seen as a cutting-edge tech company that has revolutionized the taxi industry. The reality of their business model is more crude and straightforward. They leverage billions of dollars in venture capital to run an international taxi company using sub-contracted precarious workers. They use their vast capital resources to systematically violate local taxi regulations and force their repeal through political lobbying. By ignoring regulation, downloading risk onto their employees and using low-wage subcontracted labour they effectively undermine their competitors by offering lower rates.
Some studies examining Uber’s business model suggest that fares are only covering 40 percent of Uber’s trip costs, meaning they are operating at a loss. Once the competition and regulations have been defeated they raise their rates from the position of a monopoly. They spend huge sums of money to market themselves as an innovative and revolutionary tech company in order to sustain and attract new investment. But in truth their business model barely differs from other large predatory multinationals who smash into markets by selling products and services at a loss to drive out competitors and force politicians to change regulations to sanction the new economic reality the multinational has imposed.

Automation and capitalism

The debates about automation, job loss and how best to combat them are not new. Marx observed that capitalism, “never looks upon and treats the existing form of a process as final. The technical basis of that industry is therefore revolutionary, while all earlier modes of production were essentially conservative.”
The competitive dynamism of capitalism has pushed firms to innovate to increase output. The introduction of the power loom, steam engine, the blast furnace, electrical power are in essence no different than firms employing driverless cars, machine learning, or high-end robotics. If anything the former set of technological breakthroughs increased productivity at much higher rates.
Automation in the workplace will continue to increase. What is important to understand is that the pace, extent and impact of their adoption will be shaped by the inherent contradictions within capitalism.
Automation will displace jobs and it will also create jobs. It is quite possible the rate of displacement could exceed the rate of job creation. However, if this does happen it will not only produce higher levels of unemployment (driving down labour costs), but it would also mean lower profits and growth, leading to economic turmoil. This in turn will slow the rate of investment, stall innovation, and the adoption of new technologies. As Michael Roberts explains:
“If the whole world of technology, consumer products and services could reproduce itself without living labour going to work and could do so through robots, then things and services would be produced, but the creation of value (in particular, profit or surplus value) would not. As Martin Ford puts it: the more machines begin to run themselves, the value that the average worker adds begins to decline.” So accumulation under capitalism would cease well before robots took over fully, because profitability would disappear under the weight of ‘capital-bias’.”
Capitalism will not produce a fully automated society. Instead workplaces will be automated when it is profitable to do so, not when it is socially useful or even possible. Marx noted long ago that there was a vast gulf between the potential and reality of machines under capitalism:
“The economic paradox that the most powerful instrument for reducing labour-time suffers a dialectal inversion and becomes the most unfailing means for turning the whole lifetime of the worker and his family into labour-time at capital’s disposal for its own valorization.”

Whose automation?

Instead of producing a jobless economy automation will produce more crises, more inequality, without actually reducing total work time in society. Automation under capitalism has always been a cudgel used to threaten and exploit workers. The idea that we are headed towards a fully automated future under capitalism rests on a profound misreading about how capitalism operates. It can’t happen and it won’t happen.
This is not to say that automation will not cause problems for workers, that innovation and technological breakthroughs will cease. In fact, quite the opposite, capitalism is if anything dynamic and innovative. Workers in certain industries may indeed face serious challenges of deskilling and job loss, as has always happened under capitalism. To combat this, workers will need strategies that aim to direct the fruits of technological innovation towards the working class, not simply to accommodate themselves to the will of employers.

Those that push for BI as a solution to automation aim to unite employers and workers and move beyond Left and Right to find a policy that can fit comfortably within the existing power relations of our society. Their deterministic view of technological development leads them to see BI as the only solution to the inevitability of full automation. The fact that this viewpoint gets a wide hearing on the Left ,and even in labour, is the result of a generation of defeats and the lack of confidence that workers can organize and win a better world. The Left must break with this millenarian like thinking and begin to situate the discussion over automation within a concrete analysis of capitalism which looks to class struggle for effective alternatives.

October 01, 2017

Domenico Losurdo, ‘Liberalism; the fiercest enemy to our right to live free from want’.

Domenico Losurdo, ‘Liberalism; the fiercest enemy to our right to live free from want’.
Translated Wednesday 11 September 2013, by Julian Jones
link:  http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article2337

Italian philosopher, historian and militant communist, Domenico Losurdo has been working for several years on the history of liberalism in order to rethink the process of emancipation.
‘As a communist, but not exclusively, and as a philosopher and historian, I aim to continue combatting the dominant ideology of our time. This is because the dominant ideology is a manipulation of history, an obstacle to the process of emancipation. By the same measure, we must also rethink our fight for emancipation’, proclaimed Domenico Losurdo in 2007 at the Fete de l’humanité book fair, to which he was invited for the first time by the Gabriel-Péri Foundation. Professor at the university of Urbino in Italy, Domenico Losurdo is a specialist in the philosophy of Hegel, having written two books on the subject translated into French (Hegel and the liberals, PUF, Paris, 1992 and Hegel and the German Catastrophe, Albin Michel, Paris, 1994), as well as another on Gramsci (Gramsci. From Liberalism to Critical Communism, Syllepse, Paris, 2006). Losurdo is no media intellectual, but a fundamentally important academic on the subject of liberalism, its relationship with communism and its emancipatory fight. Having devoted himself to a political history of classical German philosophy from Kant to Marx, passing through Heidegger and Nietzsche, he has since worked on a political history of liberalism (Liberalism: A Counter-History, la Découverte, 2003). He has notably also written several more works, of which the ones published in French include ’Revisionism in History’ ( Albin Michel 2006), ‘The Original 20th Century Sin’ (Aden, 2007), ’A Flight from History’ (Delga, 2007), and ‘Stalin: A History and Critique of a Dark Legend’ (Aden 2011).
In your book ‘Liberalism: A Counter-History’ [1], you deconstruct neo-liberal ideology and the way it is equated with democracy and liberty in opposition to ‘totalitarianism’. Why did it seem to you an urgent task to analyse and denounce this approach to liberalism?
Domenico Losurdo. In order to promote its expansion, each empire needs a genealogical myth which celebrates and transfigures its origins and history, and which invites its enemies (or potential enemies) to bow down to a moral force and to a political superiority. According to the legend wisely created by the Roman Empire, Rome had not only royal, but divine origins too: according to its epic history Rome was founded by the pious Aeneas who had left Troy in flames and was son of the goddess Venus and of Anchises - cousin of the King of Troy. The genealogical myth of the modern US empire hardly differs: having fled an intolerant and despotic Europe, the founding fathers joined the New World in order to erect an eternal monument to liberty in the shape of the United States, supposedly the oldest living democracy... My book on the contrary shows a completely different history: English colonies in America followed by the United States saw the formation of the most extreme form of slavery and a total dehumanisation of slaves. In the first few decades of life on the newly founded country, it was almost always slave owners who occupied the post of President, and they sought to block the emancipation of slaves in Saint-Domingo and in Haiti, as well as exporting slavery to Texas and annexing Mexico, amongst other crimes. It’s a shameful history which lasted a long time. It suffises to recount (as many notable US scholars do) how in the 1930s, the persecution of blacks in the south of the USA was comparable to the persecution of Jews under the Third Reich. All this without mentioning the extermination of Red Indians and the genocidal practices which characterised western colonialism in its entirety.
In which ways exactly has liberal ideology legitimised different forms of oppression throughout history? In your own terms, liberalism is a democracy fit only for ‘the ruling class’...
D.L. These days the situation is different. The cycle which started with the Jacobin revolution and ended with the Bolshevik Revolution radically put to the fore the question of colonial oppression at the expense of peoples of colonial origin. Nevertheless, Israel is talked about as the only ‘real’ democracy in the Middle East. The other side of the coin is that Palestinians can be arrested, tortured, and subjected to extra-judicial executions without trial. It really is a ‘democracy fit for the ruling class’! On a global level, the west assigns itself the sovereign right to start wars without even the sole permission of the UN Security Council; US Presidents often self-define their country as ‘God’s chosen nation’, with a right to guide the world. This ‘democracy fit for the ruling class’ unfortunately seems to have a rosy future. 
It must be added that liberalism ignores the link between economics and politics, of which philosophers such as Hegel and Rousseau were well aware. Hegel, in particular, showed us how someone who is at risk of dying of starvation is in reality subject to a social status comparable to that of a slave.
Some people take a great pleasure from making the comparison between nazism annd communism... How would you analyse this concept of totalitarianism?
D.L. Totalitarianism has it’s roots in theories of ‘total mobilisation’ and ‘total war’, in an enlistment of the whole population as provoked by the great capitalist powers and their competition for the conquest of colonies and global hegemony. Hitler aspired to avenge Germany, to recuperate and enlarge its ‘living (and colonial) space’. He believed himself to be the inheritor of a colonial tradition, wanting to radicalise it, invoking primarily the example of the USA, and seeking to establish his ‘Far West’ in eastern Europe and reducing Slavonic people to a condition of slaves serving the ‘master race’. It’s no coincidence that this project came to its decisive defeat at Stalingrad, and that this same defeat constituted the start of a gigantic wave of anti-colonial revolutions. 
To demonstrate the wholly arbitrary character of the dominant ideology we can make the following comparison: at the start of the 19th Century, Napoleon sent a powerful army to Saint Domingo with the aim of re-establishing slavery following its abolition by to the great black revolution led by Toussaint Louverture. Here we can safely say that in the subsequent horrendous war, the attacked weren’t anymore ‘savage’ than the aggressors, but it would seem ridiculous to accuse one side or the other of being under the category of ‘savagery’ or bloody ‘totalitarianism’.
In your latest book, ‘La Lotta di classe. Una storia politica e filosofica’ (Class Warfare, A Political History and Philosophy) [2], not yet published in French, you focus on a concept which is central to the philosophy of Marx and Engels - class warfare. In which ways can this concept help us to analyse, understand and act within our society?
D.L. According to Marx and Engels, class warfare has as its aim the division of work at an international level, at a national level and in the institution of the family. It is the people who upset the colonial order; the subaltern classes who fight against capitalist exploitation and the women who refuse to be ‘domestic slaves’ to which the patriarchal family submits them to who are on the frontline the struggle of the emancipatory classes. In light of this, the wars of liberation and national resistance led by the Chinese people and the Soviet peoples against the Empire of the Rising Sun and the Third Reich respectively, which wanted to subjugate or even reduce them to slaves, can be considered as spectacular victories of class-warfare. What’s more, the struggle of countries and of peoples who want to see an end to the western monopolisation of high technology (let’s think of China, in particular) and who refuse to be confined to inferior segments of the international work market, should also be considered as class warfare.
As a philosopher and as a communist historian, you affirm that the dominant ideology is a manipulation of history and that it constitutes an obstacle to the fight for emancipation. How do we re-think this fight for emancipation today? In your view, what has become the communist perspective in Europe and in the rest of the world?
D.L. It is necessary to engage on the three main pillars of class warfare. I’d like to draw attention to a point which is often ignored. Not only is it impossible to be a socialist but it is impossible to be a democrat if we don’t fight for democracy with regard to international relations. The claim by a small group of countries to present themselves as chosen nations with the right to start wars or even threaten to start wars without the authorisation from the UN Security Council is a manifestation of colonialism or of neo-colonialism, and ought to be contested all the way. As regards a strategic perspective, should we represent communism as the complete abolition not only of class antagonisms, but also of the state and of political power, without mentioning religion, nations, division of labour, markets, and of every possible source of conflict? By re-examining the myth of the abolition of the state, Gramsci remarked that civil society was in itself a type of state. He also underlined the fact that internationalism has nothing to do with the misunderstanding of national identities, as such identities would remain well after the collapse of capitalism. As for the market, Gramsci thought that it be wiser to talk about a ‘determined market’, rather than the market as an abstract form. Gramsci helps us to think beyond the messianism which could gravely harm the construction of a post-capitalist state.
What is your analysis of the Chinese model of society, which mixes a market economy with a socialist perspective?
D.L. The People’s Republic of China originates from the biggest anti-colonial revolution of our history, and an anti-colonial revolution can only be said to truly succeed if it can add a successful economic independence to its political independence. In this respect, there is a continuity between Mao Tse-Tung and Deng Xiaoping. The latter introduced his new plan on the basis of two main considerations. Firstly, he believed that a call to the revolutionary spirit of sacrifice can only succeed in moments of particular political enthusiasm; in the long term it is impossible to develop the productive forces (and so combat misery) without economic incentives, and therefore without competition and without markets. On top of this, during times of crises and following the collapse of the USSR, the west held the monopoly over high technology, and as such it was impossible for China to access this high technology without opening itself up to international markets. Thanks also to the achievements orchestrated by the Maoist era (with its massive promotion of education, eradication of infectious diseases, etc.), the new plan, despite its blatant contradictions can boast an incredible success: 600 million people or 660 million people (according to other estimates) liberated from misery, infrastructures worthy of a first world economy, growth in the process of industrialisation from its coast areas to its inland areas, rapid incrementation of salaries for several years and a growing concern for environmental issues. By focusing on the key role of the achievement in the safekeeping of independence and of national sovereignty, and by encouraging the old colonies to pursue their own economic independence, China can today be seen as the centre of the anti-colonial revolution -which began in the 20th Century and is still in process under its different guises to this day. And by reminding ourselves of the pivotal role the public sphere should play in any economy, China constitutes an alternative in opposition to the economic liberalism and to the consensus dictated by Washington.
In view of the austerity measures taking place in Europe, how do you conceive the alternatives and the ways in which we can achieve emancipation?
D.L. The struggles against the dismantlement of the welfare state and against bellicist politics can only play a central role. During the Second World War the Democrat F.D. Roosevelt theorised the right to live with ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom from fear’, alongside the traditional liberties granted by a liberal tradition. The economic liberalism of the consensus in Washington is the fiercest enemy to our right to live free from want. As for the right to live free from fear, this is denied to us on a daily basis by warmongering politics, threats of war and Obama’s method of resorting to drones.


[1] Contre-histoire du libéralisme, Éditions la Découverte, 2013, Liberalism: A Counter-History , Verso Publisher, 2011.

[2] La Lotta di classe. Una storia politica e filosofica, Éditions Laterza, Italie, 2013.

September 25, 2017

THE BRAZILIAN “JUNE” REVOLUTION: URBAN STRUGGLES, COMPOSITE ARTICULATIONS AND NEW CLASS ANALYSIS1 In Kalb, Don and Massimiliano, Mollona (eds.)


THE BRAZILIAN “JUNE” REVOLUTION:
URBAN STRUGGLES, COMPOSITE ARTICULATIONS AND NEW CLASS ANALYSIS1
In Kalb, Don and Massimiliano, Mollona (eds.) 

The June Revolution that shook Brazil in 2013 took everybody by surprise. It started in Sao Paulo as a small gathering protesting a looming rise in the cost of public transport, and in two weeks it spread across 400 cities and towns, bringing millions of people (6 percent of the national population) into the streets and forcing President Dilma Rousseff to start a process of constitutional reform. For many political observers this “movement of movements” was essentially a new form of working- class articulation of diverse social forces including the urban poor, traditional workers and the middle classes. Sociologist Göran Therborn (2012) reads the June revolution as an example of a new kind of socialism spreading in Latin America based on “ideological bricolage” rather than on clear-cut class distinctions and the assumption of the vanguard2 of the industrial working class as per the Eurocentric model of socialism. But, are these bricolaged working-class formations truly “atypical” in relationship to the Western model? The very idea of a typical Western industrial working class is problematic since, historically, this has been consistently fragmented in uneven patterns of labor relations, ranging from wages, slavery and informal labor, kinship and cooperativism.3 Besides, the re-emergent communism in Spain and Greece is based on similar cross-sectional alliances and ideological meshes – although in their marginal socioeconomic position within Europe, these countries are hardly typical of how capitalism articulates itself in the center. 
Ethnographic comparisons of working-class struggles are difficult to draw. Elsewhere4 I have stressed some differences in the way the industrial proletariat articulates its struggles in Brazil and the United Kingdom, based on the industrial fieldwork I conducted in steel towns in these two countries. In particular, the Brazilian experience of labor struggle was influenced by three factors: (1) a reduced public sphere, (2) a populist consensus that produced class emancipation with little class struggle and (3) the articulation of class struggle as anticolonialist struggle. Particularly, the historical convergence of anticolonialism and anticapitalism led to cross-sectional collaborations between civic, rural and labor movements that toppled the military rule in the 1980s and later propelled the Workers Party (PT) to power. As Aricò notes in Marx and Latin America (2013), these anticolonialist cross-sectional 

1 This article greatly benefitted from a conversation that I had with my colleagues Marco Santana of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Don Kalb (CEU University) and those who joined the panel on urban mobilization at the EASA conference in Tallinn.
2 Therborn describes them as “drawing support from many layers of society – the urban poor, people of indigenous or African descent, progressive element of the middle strata – and in which industrial workers are rarely in the vanguard” (2012: 16). 
3 Van der Linden (2008) 4 Mollona (2014) 

alliances negated the classical Marxist5 hypothesis of the vanguard of the industrial proletariat leading to the “new social unionism” that has been broadly documented in subaltern labor studies. 
In Brazil, it was the legacy of slavery that brought together anticapitalist and anticolonial struggles. Fighting for a freedom that encompassed both social demands and labor demands, slaves infused the labor movement of the early nineteenth century with powerful support structures, forms of struggles and civic consciousness. But boundaries between freedom and slavery continue to be fluid in Brazil. Outside the small and privileged enclave of formal workers, a vast universe of bonded and slave labor still exists. Besides, as in past forms of slavery, the civil liberties of the Brazilian poor are heavily restricted. As a result, economic and civic struggles – or, to paraphrase Nancy Frazer, struggles for “recognition” and struggles for “redistribution” – go hand in hand. For instance, women, indigenous and black consciousness in Brazil are central elements of class struggle and, according to sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, of a radically different southern epistemology of socialism that combines (cultural) difference and (economic) equality. But as Eurocentric as the theory of convergence appears to be, there is widespread skepticism in the idea that the socialist regimes of Latin America are immune to the forces of neoliberalism. After all, did not the ex-metalworker-turned-president Lula da Silva subscribe to the neoliberal dogma of deindustrialization, financialization and tertiarization, in cahoots with the industrial working class and at the expenses of precarious and informal workers and the rural poor? 
In this chapter I attempt to root these theoretical debates in the context of the struggles taking place in Rio de Janeiro in the summer of 2013, arguing for a new kind of class analysis located at the intersection of anthropology, urban geography and political economy. The deindustrialization, deregulation and financialization of the world economy have turned “global cities” into invisible factories where the dynamics of class is more complicated than in traditional, factory-based scenarios. Besides, capitalist relations attach themselves to places unevenly and invisibly, through the hidden folds of urban infrastructures and the complex politics of city planning. Take, for instance, the recent struggle of the dockworker unions, low-income communities and social movements against the development of the Olympic Village and the mega- tourist “marvelous port” (porto maravilha) in Rio de Janeiro. Up until the end of the nineteenth century, the port of Rio was one of the epicenters of the Atlantic slave trade and a hotbed of radicalism and rebellion. Living in the same squats, cortiços and collective houses surrounding the port, slaves and dockworkers struck together against the same masters. In 2012 the municipality bought from the federal government five million square meters of public land surrounding the port and sold it to private developers. A few months later, it evicted local residents and closed down primary schools, samba schools and community organizations to make space for the Olympic Village and the tourist port. Civic movements, dockworkers and low-income residents joined forces to stop the development of the “wonderful port,” although the gentrification of the area continues. This struggle may resemble similar anti- gentrification movements that are spreading throughout Europe (see, for instance, Manuela in this volume). In fact, Saskia Sassen argues that the old North–South and 

5 In spite of these Marxists claims, Aricò argues, in his discussion of the Irish question, Marx did acknowledge the centrality of anticolonial struggles in the peripheries for working-class struggles in the centers. 

East–West divide has been replaced by a generalized logic of dispossession and urban segregation coalescing around global cities such as Rio. 
But as Mike Davis shows so well, the slummification of the South, of which Rio is such an iconic example, followed a different trajectory of urban development than those of Euro-American neoliberalism, based on an explosive mixture of industrialization and extreme urban segregation. The geography of the slum has produced a political landscape marked by three strong features. First, in urban peripheries the de-territorialization of capital has been so deep that the urban poor are going through the same experience already lived by the rural poor in the 1970s – occupying land, organizing close to the territory, in small units and on a day-to-day basis. The convergence between urban and rural poor – for instance, the convergence between homeless and landless movements in Brazil – has created a new peasantry whose political force has to be reckoned with. Besides, political actions in urban peripheries take micro, dispersed and invisible forms. For instance, Bayat describes urban struggles in Cairo as an “everyday encroachment of the ordinary,” Holston argues that the self-construction of houses in poor neighborhoods is a form of civic struggle and Zibechi emphasizes the subterranean and dispersed forms of resistance in the mobilizations in El Alto and Buenos Aires. 
Second, urban peripheries have informal economies and family-based micro- entrepreneurship, which may empower marginal social constituencies. Urban-based forms of Petty Commodity Production (PCP) differ from those traditionally analyzed in anthropology and development studies.6 If the fusion of management and ownership in rural context often leads to self-exploitation, in small-scale urban contexts it may empower ethnic communities as in the cases of El Alto (Zibechi), the worker-owned factories in Buenos Aires (Sitrin) and the urban cooperatives in Sao Paulo (Singer). On the other hand, it is disingenuous to cast the informal economy and PCP as forms of “people’s capitalism”7 or to romanticize the economic mongrelization8 of cities in the South – the other side of Bauman’s dark vision of the Brazilianization of Europe. The emphasis here is on the new forms of cooperativism that are emerging from the urban peripheries of the South. 
Third, in the South and especially in Latin America, the urban poor, peasants and precarious workers led powerful “Right to the City Movements” fighting urban segregation and land grabs through commoning and grassroots participation such as the urban land committees in Caracas and Cochabamba or self-managed neighborhoods in Argentina and Brazil. These movements, fighting for urban democracy, were originally independent from party politics9 and were only later incorporated in the socialist governments of Morales, Chavez and Lula. Yet, again, are not these urban struggles for the commons the same kind of working-class “commoning” described by Susser (2013) and Kalb (2014) for the United States and Europe? There has always been a great deal of overlap between the struggles of the urban poor, those of civic movements and those of the industrial or postindustrial 

6 These tend to be integrated in global commodity chains, located in rural context and open to simple patterns of proletarianization led by male elderly (Smart and Smart 2005; Kalb 2014).
7 See, for instance, the proposal of formalizing the informal economy of the South made by Robert Neuwirth (2013). 
8 I am using the term of Merrifield (2013).
9 For an analysis of these contemporary urban movements in Brazil, see Santana and Mollona (2013). 

proletariat. In order to understand these entanglements, I will now look at how capitalist relations of production encroached on the urban texture of Rio de Janeiro, generating uneven moments of docility, resilience, rupture and contestation. 

THE “EVENT” 

The June revolution started when the Free Fare Movement (Movimento Passe Livre – MPL) led a demonstration against the impending rise in public transport fares. The MPL emerged from the student movement in 2000 and brought together the Workers’ Party (PT), students, anarchists and antiglobalization organizations. The MPL has been at the forefront of the struggle for free transport in Brazil ever since. This small protest by a few thousand demonstrators quickly escalated due to violent repression by the military police. This led to a second phase of the struggle, which reached its apex between June 17 and 20 when the movement counted hundreds of thousands people. By now the demands had widened and included health and education and opposition to Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) 37, which would restrict the attorney general’s power to carry out independent investigations, de facto eliminating an important anticorruption tool. The slogans focused on the corrupted practices of the PT in government, once an icon of utopianism and of people’s power. The recent conviction of several PT members, including from the top echelons of the party from the previous administration (known as the mensalão scandal) cast a heavy shadow over the Rousseff administration too. It was especially the government’s unethical pro-business stance in dealing with the planned sports mega-events – the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 – that generated the most outrage. As for Argentina and Spain a few months earlier, the slogans did not touch specific issues or parties but rather the whole political system – “all that exists” (contra tudo que aí está). 

Symbolically, the movement unfolded in the same streets of the city center – Candelaria, Avenida Rio Branco and Cinelândia – where the anti-dictatorship movement, led by the PT, marched in the 1980s. On June 20, one million people marched in Avenida Vargas, the modernist avenue that was bulldozed through Rio’s imperial cityscape to celebrate Vargas’s revolutionary dictatorship in the 1940s. As in other contemporary mobilizations, the Brazilian movement relied heavily on social media (Facebook and Twitter) to organize, in parallel with the mainstream demonstration, horizontal gatherings, flash mobs and direct actions targeting corporate and state buildings across the city. In this initial phase, traditional labor movements such as the PT and the trade union confederation CUT were absent, whereas more radical fringes such as the trade union confederation CONLUTAS and especially bus drivers, mass transit employees and auto- and metalworkers supported them. In spite (or because) of their traditionally conservative stance, mainstream media and TV heavily covered and even explicitly supported the antigovernment demonstrations. But, at the apex of its strength, when President Rousseff reversed the transport fare increase and proposed a constituent assembly devoted to political reform, more stringent punishments for corruption and investments in transport, health and education, the movement was furiously repressed. In the favela da Maré, ten people lost their lives in a confrontation between the police and local residents. More than one hundred activists were jailed. As if a result of the violence unleashed by the police and the army on that night, the protest entered into a third phase. Demands became more dispersed and contradictory across a wide range of issues including gay rights, the legalization of drugs, abortion and religious issues, inflation, 
public spending and privatization, traffic tolls and the national contract of public sector lecturers and bankers. For Saad-Filho, the movement was now “out of control,” fragmented and radicalized and captured by a strong anti-left middle class.10 In this phase, the traditional labor movement entered the political struggle. On July 11 – the National Day of Struggle, organized by the PT – CUT and eight trade union confederations made traditional labor demands, such as the reduction of the working week from 44 to 40 hours, increase in pensions and opposition to Lei 4330, a radical program of labor deregulation11 proposed by the government. This radical about-turn of the CUT, which had so far supported Lei 4330 in Parliament, generated speculations that the federation was trying to co-opt the movement at a moment of internal fragmentation. A more optimistic view holds that this was a moment of convergence between the “old” and “new” left. 

Ruy Braga (2014) argues that the June events were the culmination of a series of workers’ actions, especially of public workers (lecturers, bankers) and service workers (teleworkers), against the neoliberal turn the government had taken since 2008. For Saad-Filho, it was a sign of the rise of the middle classes that had been systematically penalized by the PT in power. Besides, strong regional and municipal forces against the federal government were at play, especially after the municipal elections in 2012, when almost all state capitals elected opposition mayors. More generally, the popular discontent seemed to stem from the contradictions of neo- developmentalism (in the age of late capitalism) in its combination of income redistribution, labor deregulation, especially in the service sector, and cuts in public spending. These contradictions emerged with force after the Brazilian economy started to slow down in 2012. The Rousseff government responded swiftly to the mounting criticism against the government. Already at the end of June, the president had proposed a national “pact” to reduce corruption and to expand public services, to be funded in part by the sovereign oil fund. Later, Rousseff proposed to call a plebiscite to reform the electoral and party legislations and radically boost basic health services. At least on paper, the democratic revolution had succeeded. 

SCALES OF CAPITALIST DISPOSSESSION IN THE CITY 

But how did a brooding political discontent become a full-fledged urban revolution? Some structural urban factors, including the political economy of the city, need to be considered. Reflecting the dynamics of foreign capital accumulation and developmentalism, Brazil’s shift from the coffee economy to industry was marked by a spatial reorganization from Rio de Janeiro to Sao Paulo (Mello 1982). As a result, Rio de Janeiro is now overdependent on real estate and tourism, sectors that are vulnerable to foreign speculative capital and inherently associated with high levels of informal and exploitative labor. Tourism, real estate and finance rely on armies of cleaners, gardeners, nannies, porters, receptionists, butlers, drivers, sex workers, waiters, shopkeepers, street vendors, builders and rubbish recyclers commuting daily to the wealthy suburbs in the south part of the city from favelas and poor 

10 Writing about Sao Paulo, he reports that “in Paulista Avenue on Friday evening, three demonstrations took place with different demands and in absence of any point of contact, they did not engage with each other” (Saad-Filho 2013: 666).
11 The proposal would allow companies to outsource core workers and hence to operate with a workforce of zero full-time or permanent workers, relying instead on a reserve pool of workers provided by “contact centers” – labor brokers and temporary hiring agencies. 

neighborhoods in the north. But most people are excluded from these sectors and survive on even more informal and illegal work. Perhaps more than any other Brazilian cities, the “wonderful city” is an explosive mix of extreme wealth and deprivation – of drug gangs and finance barons, favelas and luxurious real estate; of ancient aristocracies and brutal police; of pollution, infrastructural decay and stunning natural beauty. In the past few years, thanks to the dealings of the powerful governor of Rio de Janeiro, Sergio Cabral, investments in urban infrastructures and real estate boomed in Rio, accompanied by processes of gentrification and forced relocations of poor neighborhoods – often dressed up as measures of police pacification. In this already cacophonic socioeconomic context, the following powerful global, national and regional processes converged in the city at the time of the protest, magnifying it and taking it well beyond the demonstrators’ original intentions. 

(1) The organization of three sport mega-events 
The protest was ignited by what was perceived as an unjust and racist planning of three major sport events – the Confederation Cup, the World Cup and the Olympic Games – to be held in Rio between 2012 and 2016. Discontent started to arise in 2012 when the newly formed Olympic Committee announced its plans of infrastructural investments in the city. Transport and housing improvements focused mainly on Barra da Tijuca, a high-income area with a mix of multinational businesses and middle-class housing representing only 4.76 percent of Rio de Janeiro resident, while bus and low-cost train networks for low-income families were to be radically scaled down. In 2012, there were several small protests against the bourgeoisification and “whitening” of Brazilian football, reflected in the steep decline of live spectatorship and increase in tickets prices. When the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) set the price of football tickets above the financial possibility of even middle-class fans, discontent turned into anger, fueled further by revelations of FIFA’s corrupted deals. As the FIFA scandal spiraled out of control, uncovering global networks of bribery and corruption, the institution was revealed to have been granted extra-juridical power to preventively arrest people suspected of violence. For the carioca football fans, vastly black and poor, FIFA came to signify the arrogant and unaccountable power of international institutions controlled by rich nations. 

(2) Increased military repression 
In order to enforce the plans of FIFA and the Olympic committee, the municipality stepped up evictions and police occupations of favelas,12 also known as Police Pacification Units (UPP). UPPs are officially aimed at reducing the drug factions’ armed violence and community control. In practice, they empower corrupt state militias and clear the ground for private developments and gentrification of favelas in the rich, southern part of the city. Poor favelas are not targeted for UPP, or they are targeted only when they offer some potential for market expansion.13 In 2012, a leaked report showed that the Olympic Committee had already completed hundreds of forced relocations in the area of the old port, for developing transport and touristic infrastructures for the forthcoming events. Moreover, the municipality gained additional power of forced relocation after UNESCO nominated it a World Heritage 

12 See also Charlotte Livingstone, “Armed Peace: Militarization of Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas for the World Cup,” Anthropology Today 30: 4, 2014.
13 World Bank, Bringing the State Back into the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro, 2014. 

City. Thousands of families, samba schools, quilombos communities, indigenous centers and squats located nearby Maracanã Stadium were forcedly relocated by the police, following the example set by Olympic committees in other cities.14 In addition, the special bodies Security Force for Mega Events, Security for Tourism and Special Force for Order were created especially for the occasion. These paramilitary bodies were given special powers, including that of holding guns, preventive detention and destruction of identification documents to curb fans’ violence. But in fact, they were mainly deployed to disperse homeless from the city center or to join the UPP. The pacification of favelas and of the city slowly blurred into each other. On June 20, the “lawless Friday,” the armored tank used by the special police unit to invade favelas was used to disperse the demonstration. Public teachers gathering outside the Parliament in protest against the proposed reduction of the national wage were cordoned off and violently dispersed. The municipal police, with the help of military personnel trained in urban warfare, attacked street vendors in the center and around Maracanã Stadium, as Law 11 had made street selling and advertising around stadiums illegal.15 After an officer was shot dead during a protest in March, special forces stormed the Complexo da Maré, killing ten people, at least two of them bystanders. It also transpired that the Navy had installed ballistic missiles on the rooftops by Maracanã Stadium. 

(3) The National Commission of Truth (CNV) 
Perhaps in normal circumstances, the violence of the police may have passed unnoticed. But these heavy repressive measures coincided with public debates about the military regime and about Brazil’s unfinished transition to democracy generated by the work of the National Commission of Truth (CNV). The CNV was established in 2011 to explore various aspects of repression and corruption during dictatorship, whose epicenters were Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Especially during the “leaden years” of the 1970s, the military’s Department of Information (DOI) assaulted, tortured, killed and kidnapped thousands of militants in these cities. In June, when the military police moved its armored tank from the favelas to the center and beat up and jailed hundreds of demonstrators, anti-dictatorship slogans and photos emerged from everywhere. Connections between past and present forms of state repression were made. A graffiti “no to dictatorship” emerged on the state security department’s new image center building. The Legislative Assembly was stormed. MPs inside the building were inundated by text messages reading “Cabral dictator” or “happy 1968.” Thousands of photos superimposing street fights in 1968 and the present demonstration were distributed outside the building. But as well as mobilizing progressive forces, the ghost of dictatorship created a state of generalized fear and mounting speculation of an imminent military coup, especially after the police and the far right were revealed to have infiltrated the demonstration and were involved in violent actions. Is it possible, as Saad-Filho argues, that magnified by the media, the fear of an imminent collapse of democracy brought to the fore the moderate anticorruption and antigovernment agenda of the middle class? 

14 In 2007, the UN-funded Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) concluded that over the past twenty years, the Olympic Games have forced two million evictions. The Olympics were listed as one of the top causes of displacement and real estate inflation in the world.
15 Law 11 gave to FIFA exclusive selling, advertising and distribution rights over the World Cup. 


(4) Regional politics and the infamous story of Governor Cabral 
The governor of Rio de Janeiro, Sergio Cabral, was a skilled politician who succeeded in creating a powerful regional block against the federal government. Cabral reached an apex of popularity in 2011 when, with a coalition of businesses, parties, municipalities, unions and NGOs, he organized “the oil rebellion” against the federal government, forcing Dilma Rousseff to increase Rio’s stakes in oil royalties. When he announced he would run for the presidency in 2014, Cabral stood a very good chance of winning. But, at the time of the demonstration, Cabral’s good friend, developer Norberto Odebrecht (who had donated R$200 million to Cabral’s electoral campaign two years earlier), won several major bids for developing the Olympic Village. In addition, Cabral had taken big cuts on deals he brokered with global hoteliers and constructions groups – Hyatt, Hilton and DELTA – and with national crony capitalists. He was also revealed to have owned seven helicopters, which he used to transport nannies and his children’s friends and even to walk the dog. Suddenly, Cabral, Edoardo Paes (the mayor of Rio) and by extension their PMDB party, became symbols of national corruption. During “Occupy Cabral,” hundreds of people camped outside the governor’s mansion in the affluent Leblon area for several weeks, demanding Cabral’s resignation and persecution for corruption and misuse of public funds. In a dramatic announcement on public television, looking weak and defeated, Cabral resigned, pleading the occupants to leave him alone. But this moral campaign against the PMDB served the purposes of the right-wing coalition, which used it to bring down the PT/PMDB governmental coalition. 

FORCES OF LABOR 

In a recent Financial Times interview, President Rousseff declared her intention to “transform Brazil into a middle-class population.”16 If sociologist Saad-Filho17 is right to claim that the June revolution was essentially a middle-class phenomenon, then the president failed in her goal. Saad-Filho links the fierce opposition by the middle classes against the government to its policies of income redistribution, poverty reduction and expansion of citizenship, which radically reduced their privileges and economic power. Besides, Lula’s appointment of trade unionists, activists and NGO cadres to the federal government effectively changed the social composition of the state and aligned it more with the interests of the masses.18In this optic, the revolutionary events of June reflect both the political isolation of the PT and the democratic accountability of the government vis-à-vis the masses. Sociologist Ruy Braga gives a different reading of the June events. For Braga, they were not a middle- class phenomenon but rather a movement of the “precariat” – made up mainly of those young unskilled and semi-skilled workers who gained formal employment when the PT was in power but who now suffered from low wage, high turnover and exploitative working conditions. In its first mandate, the PT government increased minimum wage and workers’ welfare and formalized the labor market, also thanks to the favorable economic context. During the second mandate, starting in 2008, Lula introduced labor market flexibility and cut welfare expenses. Of the employment 

16 Joe Leahy, “FT Interview: Dilma Rousseff,” Financial Times, 3 October 2012.
17 He sees in the demonstrations “evidence of the unremitting rejections of former President Lula, President Dilma Rousseff and the PT by large segment of the upper and middle classes and the mainstream media” (2014: 661).
18 2014: 229 

created during the Lula and Rousseff administrations, 60 percent was taken by workers between 18 and 24 years old, and 94 percent of them are on an income of 1.5 times the minimum wage,19 just above the poverty level.20 The precariat’s discontent was directed against the PT, a workers’ party that was ignoring the needs of the very working class from which it originated. But there is also another explanation for such a high proportion of extremely low-paid jobs in Brazil. Since 2000, 90 percent of the jobs created during the Lula administration pay less than 1.5 times the minimum wage but nonetheless have led to a sharp decline of poverty rates in the country.21 
So the term “precariat” captures well the current conditions of a working class pulled into different directions, which consists both of formal workers whose jobs have been precarized and of the poor and previously unemployed who just got onto the job ladder. Yet the term does not reflect the complex class composition of the movement, which included the following social forces: 

(1) The MPL. Originated from within the student movement, the group has a strong collectivist and anticapitalist agenda. Its decentralized, horizontal and pluralistic ethos, forms of direct action22 and anti-institutional politics are rooted in the tradition of the anti-dictatorship movement of the 1980s, which included the PT now in power. The MPL is leaderless, and decisions are taken by a general assembly based on consensus. Besides the free fare campaign, the MPL opposed the high level of infrastructural investments in rich areas and the building of expensive stadiums. It asked for better sanitation, medical care, public safety and transport in poor areas. 
(2) Precarious public university lecturers who had already led a series of successful strikes in 2012 asking for wage increases and improved working conditions in line with those of private universities 
(3) An umbrella of left-to-the-center parties and unions, such as the Socialist Party (PSOL), the Unified Socialist Workers Party (PSTU) and the industrial confederation CONLUTAS, recently split from the mainstream industrial confederation CUT. CONLUTAS had the important role of bringing together the traditional working class (auto- and metalworkers) and civic organizations advocating both on labor issues – mainly against the precarization of service work – and on identity and equality struggles. For instance, it supported the protests by LGTB organizations against the grotesque parliamentary proposal to give psychiatric assistance to gay people. 
(4) Anarchist groups such as the Black Blocs, the Independent Popular Front of Rio de Janeiro (FIP) and the Popular Revolutionary Student Movement (MEPR) consisting mainly of “precarious” university students working during the day and studying at night. These anarchist and anti-parliamentary groups and the radical left parliamentary coalition clashed continuously and often violently.23 Mainstream TV 

19 The minimum wage is R$700 per month.
20 Calculated at R$1,000.
21 The population below the poverty line went from 36 percent in 2003 to 23 percent in 2008.
22 These often took the form of situationist interventions. One of the most successful of these involved a man dressed up in a Batman costume climbing on the roof of a building in central Rio with a placard reading, “We want quality schools and hospitals – fuck the World Cup.”
23 In one instance, after the FIP and MEPR accused the PSTU of “bourgeois pacifism” and reformism, some of its members physically assaulted an FIP group during a demonstration.
 

captured young anarchists and Black Bloc activists looting and destroying shops and violently attacking the police. Many of them ended up in jail. But their politics were not “spontaneous,” as they, for instance, supported the strikes of primary teachers and university lecturers. 
(5) Subaltern formation of street vendors and the Landless Movement (Movimento de Sem Terra – MST) militants. Street vendors had been resisting relocation from the center by the municipal police for some time. As in Egypt, Mexico and Bolivia, the street vendors in Rio mobilized a huge social network that blocked the action of the police and paramilitary in the center. The MST’s historical formation brought to the fore the voices of indigenous and black communities against the gentrification and social exclusion generated by the sport events preparation. Together with the homeless movement, the MST is consolidating its presence in rural favelas and urban farms in the north of the city. 
(6) Service workers, especially teleworkers24 who, since 2000, had strongly opposed the government’s proposal of labor deregulation contained in Lei 4330. It is worth describing in some depth the telemarketing industry, as it incarnates the current dynamics of tertiarization, privatization and financialization of Brazil’s economy . The sector is characterized by a feminized, non-white and low-income labor force from a very poor background.25 Telework offers them some labor rights and the chance to study at night. But even so, the telework is so alienating that an average job lasts only one year. Braga argues that Brazilian teleworkers and other service workers are traditionally described as “the neoliberal generation” – individualistic, apolitical and “economically minded.” In fact, since 2000, they have been very politically active and have developed a powerful social movement unionism, combining demands for higher wages and other social and civic struggles. In particular, they have campaigned against unequal treatment of women, racial discrimination against black people and homophobia regarding gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual and transgender communities. Moreover, service workers, especially teleworkers, are at the forefront of the recent struggles against labor deregulation. The current labor system forbids outsourcing “core” productive activities. Under the terms of Lei 4330, proposed by the government, outsourced workers will no longer work at the margins of the productive process but will rather be at its very core. This will allow call centers to operate with full zero-hour workforces provided by contact centers, labor brokers and temporary hiring agencies. Lei 4330 is widely perceived as a deliberate response from the Rousseff administration to international call centers’ ongoing demands for lower labor costs and increased outsourcing opportunities. Effectively, the new legislation will enable call centers to move from higher skilled, trilingual and technical contract workers to low-skilled, low-wage employees. The campaign against precarization has brought together the traditional labor movement and various grassroots and civic organizations, especially young women, black and LGTB communities who share the precarious condition of service workers. 
(7) The Popular Committee on the World Cup and Olympics – an umbrella of NGOs, academics, neighborhood associations, human rights organizations and legal activists formed in 2012. The Committee drew on the already-existing Right to the 
24 Ruy Braga has analyzed these workers’ conditions in depth.
25 They are mainly children of casual laborers, maids and cleaners – all jobs with earnings below the poverty line. 
10 
City coalition and the rules of participatory planning contained in the 1988 constitution and the City Statute (2000). It gathered confidential data and information on forced relocation, municipal budgets and extraordinary legislation; organized high- profile debates and campaigns; and, during the protest, led urban actions with the disenfranchised population of favelas and urban peripheries. 
(8) The traditional labor movement. The PT and the CUT entered the stage as late as July when it organized, along with eight national trade union confederations and the MST, a “day of action.” Part of the reason for this delay into the demonstration is that the PT and CUT were marginalized and attacked by the main coalition early on because of their support for Lei 4330. CUT, its affiliated unions and the PT have been traditionally indifferent if not hostile toward nonindustrial and informal workers, even if this category represents 40 percent of the labor market. At the beginning of the struggle, these traditional labor forces failed to acknowledge that the demonstrations articulated central labor struggles and demands, even if not in the traditional form of mass protest. Only later, with the mediation of CONLUTAS and the MPL, was the left able to rearticulate itself across a broader political spectrum. 

MIDDLE-CLASS, POOR OR PRECARIOUS? 

So, was “the movement of the movements” led by the middle classes or by the precariat? The answer is not straightforward because the political and economic threshold between the precariat and the middle classes is fuzzy. For instance, their main common enemies are inflation and corruption. Inflation is especially explosive because of the enormous impact it has on consumption. The PT in government had made consumption the base of the social contract with its working-class electorate and the motor of Brazilian growth achieved by raising minimum wages, credit and transfers to working-class families. But at the beginning of 2013, the 10 percent increase in retail prices hit the working class hard. Most working-class families struggled to pay back their mortgages and for food and basic services. The middle class was hit even more violently by the raise in services. By the time of the demonstrations, a vociferous anti-inflation movement, bringing together middle and working classes, had emerged. As well as the price of basic food, people lamented the astronomical price of durables and high-tech goods, due to protective duties and high corporation taxes. It is difficult to believe that inflation hit in the same way those who were struggling for survival and the conspicuous consumers. But at least in Brazil, popular mobilizations against inflation tend to happen in turbulent times when the populist social contract between state, middle classes and working class collapses. Anticorruption movements are also typically cross-sectional. In May, just before the demonstrations, the trials against the PT politicians involved in the mensalão vote- buying scandal had just ended. The president’s chief of staff, the president of the PT and several federal deputies were forced to resign. The PT went through a catastrophic loss of support. By trying to repel Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) 37, the PT in power appeared to want to neutralize the power of the public ministry and refuse to be held accountable by its citizens. Left-wing organizations led anticorruption campaigns as struggles for democratization. Right-wing forces and the middle classes used the anticorruption argument to topple the government, as in the case of Cabral. 

Moreover, the boundaries between the middle class and the precariat are economically fuzzy. The World Bank puts the middle class at an income between $2 and $13 per day – the first is the definition of absolute poverty and the second the poverty line in the United States.26 Economists Duflo and Banerjee27 also emphasize the economic precarity of middle classes, whose income they also calculate between $2 and $10 per day but differ from the precariat because of their occupational stability. In Brazil, references to the precariousness of the middle class are constant. Marcio Pochmann’s28 statistical analysis of Brazilian middle classes shows how in fact they are in fact blurring with the precariat. Or, to put it differently, he argues there has never been a real middle class in Brazil. Set up in 2003 by the first Lula administration, the program of poverty reduction Bolsa Familia today reaches 13 million families, one-quarter of the national population. But on the backdrop of its massive social spending, which reached 23 percent of the GDP in late 2000, the second Lula administration started a process of mass tertiarization across the economic board, which involved mainly older, female and black workers. Parallel to the precarization of formal sectors, there has been an increase in informal jobs (which today constitute 40 percent of the economy) and of low-income occupation such as domestic labor. The new middle classes, Pochmann argues, barely make it above the poverty threshold. Their occupations are as precarious as those of informal workers and of the poor who just entered the job market. 
Singer’s analysis 29 of the June demonstrators’ socioeconomic profile confirms the porosity between the middle class and the precariat in Brazil. The majority of the demonstrators were very young, especially in Rio, where 41 percent were under the age of 25 and 39 percent under 34. That is to say, 80 percent were under the age of 39. Moreover, participants overall had high levels of education. In most cities, no less than 43 percent of demonstrators had a university degree (against a national average of 8 percent). In Rio, this percentage was slightly lower at 34 percent. But is high education enough to be middle class? In Rio, 34 percent of the protesters had only one family minimum wage per month.30 If we add those who earn between two and five minimum wages for months (still considered among the lowest income strata in Brazil) together, these groups accounted for 88 percent of the demonstrators – against a national average of 50 percent. Yet, according to economist Waldir Quadros,31 this is exactly the profile of the Brazilian middle class associated with such low-income jobs as shop assistant, receptionist, domestic servant, maid, clerk, waiter, driver, nurse, primary school teacher, manicurist, hairdresser or telemarketer who are entering the job market today. This is not the middle class of the liberal professions – of the lawyers, doctors and engineers who joined the anti-dictatorship movement in the 1980s or who toppled Mubarak in Egypt. Yet research suggests that 30 percent of the demonstrators defined themselves as being from the center, and adding those who 

26 Martin Ravallion, “The Developing World’s Bulging (but Vulnerable) Middle Class,” World Development 38(4), 2010.
27 Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, “What is Middle Class about the Middle Classes around the world?” MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, no 7-29, 2007. 
28 Pochmann (2012)
29 André Singer, “Rebellion in Brazil: Social and Political Complexion of the June Events,” NLR 85, 2014.
30 The dynamics of poverty and inequality in Rio is more extreme than in other cities, where on average only 15 percent of demonstrators came from the lowest income level.
31 Waldir Quadros, “Brasil: Um Pais de Classe media,” Le Monde Diplomatique Brasil, 1 November 2012. Cited in Singer (ibid.).
 

classified themselves as center-left and center-right, the center constituted 70 percent of the demonstrators. Instead of the demonstrations being co-opted by the middle classes, Singer suggests a “much more subtle repositioning by a post-materialist center.”32 Inglehart’s notion of “post-materialism” – the idea that the relationship between income and well-being is relevant only at low levels of income and that for most people well-being is associated with such factors as self-expression and quality of life – has became a central reference in the debate about the middle classes in Brazil, especially within the liberal center.33 The popularity of this empty term – “post-materialism” – shows how confusing the current situation is in Brazil due to its exposure to two contradictory and convergent political and economic processes: one of proletarianization of the center, through casualization, and another of bourgeoisification of the masses, through poverty relief and incentives to consumption. But what are the implications of this blurring of middle-class and working-class struggles in Brazil and, if Singer is right, of the working-class endorsing non-materialist values? An episode will help to illustrate these questions. During the black Friday, a journalist was killed by a group of youths identified as Black Blocs. At the trial, it emerged that some of the incriminated Black Blocs were from the very affluent neighborhood of Barra de Tijuca and some from the Baixada Flumiense, one of the poorest neighborhoods in Brazil. Even assuming they will have an equal trial (still pending), will the experience affect their lives in the same way? 

CONCLUSION: NOTES FOR A CONTEMPORARY URBAN CLASS ANALYSIS 
  • Cities nest within themselves different scales of political economy – regional, local, national and global – each of them with different temporal dynamics. The traditional spatial and temporal dynamics of capital and labor associated with factory work has been replaced by a radical temporal and spatial disjuncture between, paraphrasing Harvey,34 “life-spaces” (the space of community and places) and the forces operating in the abstract economy (international investors, sport institutions, global developers, hoteliers and oil companies). Such cognitive and experiential disconnect between economy and life in the urban context makes it difficult to develop class solidarity and sustained political action. But the convergence of different scales and forces of political economy within the city, as in June 2013, has a multiplier effect on solidarities, cross-sectional alliances and revolutionary action (see for instance the Greek example).
  • As much as economics is an ideological construction, politics does not exist in a vacuum. The political economy approach I propose roots the analysis of urban struggle in the understanding of the economy and the relations of production of the city “as factory.” The focus on rents and incomes associated with the abstract logics of finance and services is only one aspect of it. Invisible labor infrastructures and grassroots economies – informal trade, small and illegal production, street markets – need to be unveiled too.
    32 Ibid: 34
    33 It was used for instance by Green MP Marina Silva in her electoral campaign in 2014 34 Harvey and Hayter (1994) 
  • In cities like Rio, where rural favelas and the hyper-developed center blend into each other, it becomes clear that the dynamics of inequality from urban rents (highlighted by Harvey35 and Piketty36) and land grabbing (highlighted by Sassen37) are part of the same global logic of dispossession. The important role of the MST in the June demonstrations highlight a new convergence in Brazil as in other parts of the South, between “new-peasant” and working- class struggles. More generally, do the casual laborers, landless peasants, street vendors and dispossessed ethnic minorities living in the slums in Asia, Africa and Latin America form a new class from the margins?38
  • Class struggles are also moments of intellectual and material production. How can anthropology capture these processes, at once material and intellectual, without objectifying them and reducing them to abstract categories – such as “horizontalism,” “workerism” or “class”? Can our fieldworks combine participant observation with moments of reflection, taking place in the immediate and with our informants, on the life forms emerging in moments of political struggles?
  • Latin America developed its own tradition of socialism, based on collaborations between middle classes and subaltern formations – informal laborers, unemployed unions, migrants’ coalitions and indigenous organizations – as an integral part of its anticolonial struggles. Horizontalism is also re-emerging in anticapitalist struggles in Argentina,39 Bolivia40 and Brazil.41 Traditionally suspicious of such “Bolivarist”42 alliances, European Marxism is now coming to terms with these horizontal forms of class composition, as it has become evident in the urban struggles in Spain, New York and Greece. But horizontalism, starfish organizations, decentralized networks, consensus and leaderlessness are also the modus operandi of mafia organizations, al-Qaida franchises, tea parties and the creative industries. Raymond William famously argued that “there are in fact no masses, but only ways of seeing people as masses.” So what is the right balance, between verticalism and horizontalism, through which we can imagine ourselves as new masses? Ex post, the most positive consequence of the June events was the re-articulation of the left around both horizontal and vertical processes and organizations.

  • EPILOGUE
    After the events of June 2013, different strands of the left – old and new trade union confederations (CUT and CONLUTAS), subaltern organizations (MST and homeless) and the vertical and the horizontal left (MPL, PT and PSOL) – came together in a series of meetings, discussions and movements. The radical changes in the electoral
  • 35 David Harvey, 2013.
    36 Thomas Piketty, 2014.
    37 Saskia Sassen, 2014.
    38 Göran Therborn, 2014.
    39 Marina Sitrin, 2006.
    40 Raul Zibechi, 2010.
    41 Andre Singer, 2012.
    42 I am referring to Marx’s essay on Bolivar, which inspired some Marxist orthodox readings of Latin American politics.


system and expansion of public services linked to oil venues announced by Rousseff after the protest communicated clearly that the government took seriously the demands of the protesters and felt democratically accountable toward them. In spite of the damaging effect of the events in June 2013, Rousseff was re-elected a year later, mostly due, as for Lula before her, to the vast support of the urban poor and the rural masses. 
But a recent public investigation in the kickback schemes of Petrobras – Brazil’s mighty state-run oil company, listed by Forbes as the twenty-fifth most powerful oil corporation in the world – is triggering a new wave of mass protests against the president. The top echelons of the PT, including the party treasury and the president of the lower house – appear to have received kickbacks from Petrobras or have connived with the company on briberies, money laundering, misinformation and illegal tendering. Thirty-five Petrobras top managers, including the CEO, have resigned, and the company faces a $98 million lawsuit from US shareholders. The Congress is paralyzed, and there are continuous calls for the impeachment of the president. In March 2015, half a million Brazilians took the street in anticorruption demonstrations. But this time, demonstrations had a strong right-wing component, especially in Rio, home to Petrobras’s headquarters and main facilities, where the company cut 40,000 jobs since January. 

During recent demonstrations, people advocated for a military coup and the return to a dictatorship43 and open condemnations of the left-wing regimes that came to dominate Latin America.44 These demonstrations were led by the movements Free Brazil (Movimento Brasil Livre – MBL) and Join the Street (close to the main political opposition party PMDB and business elites), which emerged from a texture of smaller right-wing and even fringe organizations.45 Because the scandal involved the entire political spectrum, their anticorruption slogans are directed against the whole political system. Inspired by the dubious legacies of seventeenth-century bainderantes,46 Margaret Thatcher and Rand Paul, the MBL disseminated a Free Economy manifesto, which, in classic “Friedman economics” style, advocates extreme privatization, tax cuts and labor deregulation. Brazil has a long tradition of developmentalism and CEPALISM and was historically immune from the North American ideology of free market. But the rapid deterioration of Brazil’s economy is increasing the popular appeal of these free market manifestos and opposition to state regulation. 
How can the events of June 2013 be reassessed in the light of these contemporary developments? For one thing, the recent proliferation of free-market and authoritarian slogans does show the isolation of the PT – and more general of the “neoliberal left.” In line with the Brazilian tradition of populism, the PT brought together big capital and the dispossessed masses, but as an expanding section of the working class (the so- called “center”) finds itself impoverished, the social pact broke down. In order to build a new political consensus, the PT needs to reconnect with the working class and 

43 For instance, a banner reading “Army, Navy and Air Force. Please save us once again of communism.”
44 Such as “Brazil does not want and will not be a new Venezuela” or “Nation + Liberty = PT (Workers Party) Out!.” 
45 Such as Revoltados Online and SOS Forças Armada.
46 Explorers in the interior of Brazil hunting for gold, minerals and slaves. 

grassroots organizations that propelled it into power. Besides, economy does matter. In time of economic prosperity, horizontal forces may turn popular anger into progressive a movement, as it happened in 2013. But in the times of economic downturn, cross-sectionalism may take dangerous right-wing turns. Even if Brazil did not experience dictatorship in such radical forms as other Latin American countries, the immense popularity47 of Jair Bolsonaro, a military reservist supporting dictatorship, in Rio de Janeiro is worrying. 
In spite of these new developments, Brazil is one of the few countries in the world where both poverty and inequalities are decreasing; the new and the old left are coming together and a party with a tradition of grassroots activism, participatory democracy and working-class militancy is still in power. Even when they do not lead to proper revolutions, urban mobilizations such as those of June 2013 may sketch the contours of new articulations of power and be prefigurations of possible futures. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo. 2007. “What is Middle Class about the Middle Classes around the world?” MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, no 7-29.

Aricò, Jose. 2013. Marx and Latin America. Brill Academic Publishing.

Bayat, Asef. 2009. Life as Politics. How Ordinary People Change the Middle East. 
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Braga, Ruy. 2014. As jornadas de junho no Brasil: Crônica de um mês inesquecível. Unpublished manuscript.

Davis, Mike. 2009. Planets of Slums. London: Verso.

Frazer, Nancy. 2000. “Rethinking Recognition.” New Left Review 3: 107-120.

Harvey, David. 2013. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.

Harvey, David and Teresa Hayter. 1994. The Factory and the City: the History of the Cowley Automotive Workers in Oxford. Cengage Learning EMEA.

Holston, James. 2009. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunction of Democracy and Modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kalb, Don. 2014. “The ‘Empty Sign’ of ‘the Middle Class’: Class and the Urban Commons in the 21st Century.” In Donald Nonini, ed., A Companion to Urban Anthropology, pp. 220–249. Oxford: Blackwell.

de Sousa Santos, Boaventura. 2012. Another Production Is Possible: Beyond the Capitalist Canon. London: Verso.

47 Bolsonaro won in Rio de Janeiro more votes than any other congressional representative in the 2014 elections. 

Livingstone, Charlotte. 2014. “Armed Peace: Militarization of Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas for the World Cup,” Anthropology Today 30: 4. 

Merrifield, Andy. 2013. The Politics of the Encounter: Urban Theory and Protest under Planetary Urbanization. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 

Mollona, Massimiliano. 2014. “Anthropology and Class Analysis: Working-Class Politics in a Brazilian Steel Town.” In James Carrier and Don Kalb, eds., Class and Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Neuwirth, Robert. 2013. Stealth of Nations: The Global Rise of the Informal Economy. London: Anchor Press. 

Picketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. 

Ponchman, Marcio. 2012. Nova Classe Média? Sao Paulo: Boitempo.
Saad-Filho, Alfredo. 2013. “Mass Protest under ‘Left Neoliberalism’: Brazil, June- 
July 2013.” Critical Sociology. 39 (5): 657-669 

Santana, Marco Aurélio, and Massimiliano Mollona. 2013. “Trabalho e ação coletiva: Memória, espaço e identidades sociais na cidade do aço.” Horizontes Antropologicos 19(39): 125–148. 

Sassen, Saskia. 2014. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Singer, André. 2014. “Rebellion in Brazil: Social and Political Complexion of the June Events.” New Left Review 85: 19–37. 

Sitrin, Marina. 2006 Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina. AK Press. Smart, Alan and Josephine Smart (eds.) 2006. Petty Capitalists and Globalization. 

Flexibility, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. SUNY Press.
Susser, Ida, and Stéphane Tonnelat. 2013. “Transformative Cities: The Three Urban 
Commons.” Focaal – Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 66: 105. Therborn, 

Göran. 2014. “New Masses? Social Bases of Resistance.” New Left Review 
85: 7–16.
Therborn, Göran. 2012. “Class in the 21st Century.” New Left Review 78: 5–29. 

Van der Linden, Marcel. Workers of the World: Essays towards a Global Labor History. Leiden Brill. 

Zibechi, Raul. 2010 Dispersing Powers: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces. AK Press. 



Featured Story

Dejemos que la izquierda de Estados Unidos tenga cuidado! por Andrew Taylor 23.06.2021

La Administración Biden ha habilitado una nueva "Iniciativa contra el terrorismo doméstico" para defender "The Homeland"...