So I was watching some videos on Youtube and found an interesting one by a philosopher with a complicated name.
Summarizing what he says, Steve Bannon, the guy who wants to set up an international conservative right movement, does it by giving people something to fear, even if it is an imaginary danger. The protection could be provided by the right, making conservative solutions more palatable. In European xenophobic countries, for example, this danger would be the foreigner, the immigrant. The far right won here in Brazil, and our personal enemy is communism. First, there is no communism in Brazil. I think even the people on the left do not believe in the possibility of implementing a communist regime in Brazil. Not because it would be impossible (because it is possible), but because it would be impossible with the current world setup to be a communist country while also being capable of maintaining the level of comfort. The big motifs of the elections were “do not let Brazil become a Venezuela” or “Brazil will not be a new Cuba” or “the flag will never be red”. Now that we have a right-wing president and, one month later, people are already wanting to kick him out, a good idea to thwart Bannon’s plans for Brazil would be the revitalization of aesthetic communism.
You see, Bannon’s idea, at least according to the video, is to associate all that is left-wing with communism, that invisible enemy (because it is not there), which, being “invisible”, can be anywhere and everywhere. This was supposed to keep the liberals weak and low, because, identified with communism, they have become the enemy. But the Brazilian left is not Communist. Now, if something can be called “communism” without actually being so, why do not we label as “communism” the good things too? An idea doesn’t need to be really communist, in the correct sense of the word. It just needs the label. Example: Pension reform is undesirable for most Brazilians. Now, to be against pension reform is to be communist, not that it is bad. Another: legalization of firearms possession is undesired by most Brazilians. But to be against firearms is to be communist at the same time as it is a peaceful position. If all that Bolsonaro hates is communist just because he hates it, any position contrary to Bolsonaro’s positions is a communist position, even when the so-called “communists” have a point. The idea is to revitalize the word, not its content, to show the “communist” opinions (everything that is against Bolsonaro) as being palatable. This disarms Bannon’s idea that communism is the enemy and he will have to find something else to stigmatize the left and the process can be repeated with this “new enemy.”
It is not a question of converting to communism, but a question of labeling as “communism” any sensible and clearly beneficial position that stands against the designs of the right-wing, even if such position is not actually a communist position. If the enemy proves to be better than the ally, then the ally becomes an enemy.