Hacker News Reader

Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

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

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

> Human beings must understand that they have limitations.

> We have to define what each of us needs.

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

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

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

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

> Three pairs of shoes? Okay.

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

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

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

> Let some parasites who never worked keep the money?

> While the people are hungry?

View on HN

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

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

> Is this all there is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com