Lula in the middle of communism?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 21/04/2023
Share:
In the free online encyclopedia "Wikipedia", which helps "much more than enough" for those of us who are concerned about transcribing what we imagine, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, also known as Lula da Silva or simply Lula, is described as a Brazilian politician, founder of the Workers' Party, who was born in Caetés, State of Pernambuco, on October 27, 1945. So far the simplicity of the story, a source for usual admiration.
But the trial regarding this metal worker requires "the summation" of other chores. Indeed, not very tall, he has been married 3 times and his current wife Rosângela da Silva fell in love with her while in prison, who must be excited for the birth of what would be the brother or sister of Fábio Luís, Sandro Luís, Lurian Cordeiro, Marcos Claudio and Luis Cláudio da Silva. The political leader with 9 fingers, as Jair Bolsonaro used to call him contemptuously, because he had lost one in his mechanical trade, is, as the narrative of the aforementioned "portal" concludes, the 39th and current president of the "giant of Latin America."
In the same source, Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva is pointed out as the "leader" of the "Sao Pablo Forum", a circumstance to place him in the international political spectrum, as "a man of the left", that kind of lady with whom they have danced and even slept more than one in "the Americas." It was founded, as it is read, by the Brazilian Workers' Party, in São Paulo, in 1990. Its purpose is “to debate the international scenario after the fall of the Berlin Wall with the aim of combating the consequences of neoliberalism in the countries from America, members with the right to speak and vote, unlike those from Europe and Asia with access only to “speech”. The vote of the latter is limited to decisions in the so-called “special commissions”. In "The Forum Presentation Primer" it reads "Foundation, July 1, 1990, Slogan, For a new integration of Latin America, Headquarters, Sao Pablo, Brazil, Members, 123 parties and organizations from America. In the communist classification that has received help, without a doubt, the “Position”, “Center-left to left”. The dilemma, it could be expressed, would go through defining which of the two to stay with, but, even, at the opposite extreme “Center-right to right”. Particularly, when in the 21st century it is heard quite regularly that both the right and the left do not exist. They are victims of the verb “periclitar”. They have become electoral indications for public opinion and electoral and campaign strategies in order to capture the vote of certain sectors, through the exploitation of individualist and authoritarian ideas. 123 parties and organizations of America. In the communist classification that has received help, without a doubt, the “Position”, “Center-left to left”. The dilemma, it could be expressed, would go through defining which of the two to stay with, but, even, at the opposite extreme “Center-right to right”. Particularly, when in the 21st century it is heard quite regularly that both the right and the left do not exist. They are victims of the verb “periclitar”. They have become electoral indications for public opinion and electoral and campaign strategies in order to capture the vote of certain sectors, through the exploitation of individualist and authoritarian ideas. 123 parties and organizations of America. In the communist classification that has received help, without a doubt, the “Position”, “Center-left to left”. The dilemma, it could be expressed, would go through defining which of the two to stay with, but, even, at the opposite extreme “Center-right to right”. Particularly, when in the 21st century it is heard quite regularly that both the right and the left do not exist. They are victims of the verb “periclitar”. They have become electoral indications for public opinion and electoral and campaign strategies in order to capture the vote of certain sectors, through the exploitation of individualist and authoritarian ideas. The dilemma, it could be expressed, would go through defining which of the two to stay with, but, even, at the opposite extreme “Center-right to right”. Particularly, when in the 21st century it is heard quite regularly that both the right and the left do not exist. They are victims of the verb “periclitar”. They have become electoral indications for public opinion and electoral and campaign strategies in order to capture the vote of certain sectors, through the exploitation of individualist and authoritarian ideas. The dilemma, it could be expressed, would go through defining which of the two to stay with, but, even, at the opposite extreme “Center-right to right”. Particularly, when in the 21st century it is heard quite regularly that both the right and the left do not exist. They are victims of the verb “periclitar”. They have become electoral indications for public opinion and electoral and campaign strategies in order to capture the vote of certain sectors, through the exploitation of individualist and authoritarian ideas.
Political leadership tends to be strengthened by the promise of an egalitarian world and fade when "the offer" is not fulfilled. The causes of failure are diverse, but perhaps one of the most decisive is "demagogy", the terrible "political practice of winning popular favor with flattery (RAE)". In Galatians 3:28 it was written “There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither man nor woman; for you are all one in Christ Jesus", evidence that "being equal", as it comes from yesteryear. And, also, quite a bit later, since it is observed that in Plato's criterion "the authentic one" consists in giving "the same according to nature to unequals in each case". But closer still to our time to the question: What is political equality, social and economic? The answer is "This means that all citizens are considered equal before the Law, have the right to vote, participate in elections and demand justice." And with an added determinant, "Unless we are all treated equally, regardless of our caste, religion, economic status, education, and gender, we cannot be called socially equal." In the real context of our days we hear that "both the provisions of the market and those of the State have created in the last century economies that only benefit a very small number of extraordinarily wealthy citizens, at the expense of the rest (Economic inequality in the Century XXI, Joan Miguel Tejedor-Estupiñán)”. It also reads “Thomas Piketty, Scourge of the Rich. A decade of inconvenient truths and little progress… Despite his enormous intellectual and academic influence, inequality continues to rise and the global tax debate remains more open than ever.” The conclusion derived from the comments is none other than that if the State and public power are justified, it is precisely to establish and materialize egalitarian and equitable societies. The abyss between the few that reach it and the many that do not, ends up defining the human course and with it that of the peoples. And so it has been since the conquest, the empires and until today, a complicated and uncertain time. The conclusion derived from the comments is none other than that if the State and public power are justified, it is precisely to establish and materialize egalitarian and equitable societies. The abyss between the few that reach it and the many that do not, ends up defining the human course and with it that of the peoples. And so it has been since the conquest, the empires and until today, a complicated and uncertain time. The conclusion derived from the comments is none other than that if the State and public power are justified, it is precisely to establish and materialize egalitarian and equitable societies. The abyss between the few that reach it and the many that do not, ends up defining the human course and with it that of the peoples. And so it has been since the conquest, the empires and until today, a complicated and uncertain time.
We do not know if it would be correct or if this reasoning, not even remotely accepted by the majority, would lead to locating the current Prime Minister of Brazil far away in China, where it seems that they work more and talk less. And if the former nine-fingered mechanical metal has considered that just as Western companies seek better profits in that atypical regime for an alleged "democracy", without a doubt, "restricted", at least, in terms of " freedom of speech” and the “disproportionate vote”, for being sued for everything, it refers to. "The media" reveals, by way of illustration, that "62.9% of US companies in China claimed to be more optimistic about their business in the Asian giant after the US electoral victory of the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, who defeated a Donald Trump under whose mandate relations with Beijing deteriorated remarkably”. A question, perhaps, impertinent, will Biden feel happy with Luis Ignacio, due to the coincidence that "In China, what is the thing?"
By way of conclusion, what seems evident is that the 39th President of Brazil, a country aptly called "the Latin American giant", has gone to his meetings with Hi Jinping so that his third wife "Janja" would exhibit himself as "first lady ”.
Comments welcome.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».