Trump has already tried to use pressure to help Bolsonaro by announcing a 50% tariff on goods from Latin America’s No. 1 economy
Apparently this (fueled by family members lobbying) has backfired in Brazil as members of Bolsonaro's base are disaponted by what is perceived as his anti national behaviour.
matheusmoreira · 2h ago
"Bolsonaro's base" is doing nothing of the sort. They think these sanctions are awesome. They are absolutely necessary in a judiciary dictatorship where protesters are sent to jail as political prisoners. If anything, they're not nearly enough.
Bolsonaro was the one who revived brazilian nationalism against all odds. Lula and his communists likened it to Nazi Germany and made it their explicit goal to destroy said nationalism. Now that the USA is sanctioning them, they're appealing to nationalism? They shit all over the military then call upon them when their "sovereignty" is threatened? That's hilarious, comical.
I for one would very much rather see this country burn than see it governed by the unelected courts. Maybe then a nation that's actually worthy of nationalism will rise from its ashes.
hulitu · 57m ago
> Bolsonaro was the one who revived brazilian nationalism against all odds
while staying in US. Funny how a lot of "nationalists" run to the mothership when something goes wrong.
matheusmoreira · 29m ago
We agree. I consider Bolsonaro a cowardly rat who betrayed everyone who ever supported him. He was in the USA while people were protesting in his name and literally going to jail for him.
He's still the person who managed to revive brazilian nationalism against all odds and despite the hipocrisy. Surely that's not in dispute here?
hunglee2 · 13h ago
International politics is revealing itself to operate on the principles of the mafia, where basically everything is leverage and where 'imposing costs' is the primary tool of discipline. Perhaps,'twas ever thus and Trump's main crime is being so crude about it that deniability is no longer plausible
buran77 · 12h ago
> is revealing itself
Not really a revelation though. The ones with most of the power always leveraged any tool they had at their disposal to have their way and press everyone else into compliance. Sometimes it's carrot, sometimes it's stick. And they always applied rules selectively based not on what but on who. Just like the mafia, carving out special rules and dispensations for themselves.
Interference in other countries' affairs was the name of the game for at least a century. But for a long time now the US has no need to offer the carrot at all seeing how most times they can get anything they want with just the threat of the stick.
In this case not having a visa is probably a blessing in disguise. Better to know you're not wanted before you are detained at the border and "accidentally" extradited directly to a prison's gate.
ethbr1 · 3h ago
Everything new is old.
Would recommend reading chapters 2 & 3 of this, on early 60s grappling with how to achieve arms control between antagonistic and equivalent powers, via constructing scenarios where it’s in mutual self-interest: https://archive.org/details/armscontroldisar013124mbp/page/n...
It’s been a while since Americans have had to burn brain power to solve problems like this, but it has happened before.
elcritch · 13h ago
Yep, it always was.
logtempo · 13h ago
cooperation show greater benefits in general.
m-p-3 · 8h ago
Especially when one stand to lose much more than they can afford, to switch them from opposition to cooperation..
watwut · 11h ago
Nah. Trumps main crime is his bad faith malignant harm seeking politics. It is what he does and did again and again.
bboygravity · 12h ago
Wait, so you're saying the crackdown on Bolsonaro is fine and ethically 100 percent ok?
Sounds like you know more about it than me.
Can you explain?
user5534762135 · 12h ago
States using courtrooms to punish people who have attempted a coup is hardly unethical, no?
I have to say, it is cute to read your faux outrage over this after Bolsonaro made sure the guy with the best chances to defeat him two elections back would be put into prison in a sham trial right before the election... not persecuting a figure as corrupt and power hungry as Bolsonaro would be 100% ethically wrong.
rglullis · 12h ago
I think you got your timeline of events in the wrong order. Bolsonaro was just a low-level congressman when Lula was convicted.
Not saying that Bolsonaro has any moral high ground to stand on, though. He is as corrupt as it gets. But if anything, I'd say that his problems really started when he was already elected and colluded with the Supreme Court to get Lula out of prison in exchange of killing the investigation against his sons.
claudionaoto · 10h ago
That is false. Lula was freed because a hacker leaked the messages between the judge and the prosecutor, showing the judge's active collaboration with the prosecution. The trial was annulled. The case restarted, and they found that the evidence against him was quite weak.
rglullis · 8h ago
Yeah, right. And the fact that investigations on Bolsonaro were shelved by Toffoli are a mere coincidence.
oporquinho94 · 12h ago
If anything it’s way too mild.
I meant the guy had a concrete plan to topple democracy, assassinate other leaders and bring back dictatorship.
People like this should be thrown into prison for the rest of their lives.
matheusmoreira · 1h ago
If only he had actually attempted a coup and succeeded. Then maybe we wouldn't have had to live in a quasi-communist judiciary dictatorship.
You do realize the supreme court has been grabbing power since 2019 and by now is essentially running the country, right? A few days ago they once again walked all over our elected congress. Our institutions exist to give people the illusion of democracy. In fact, these unelected judges have usurped the powers of the legislative and executive branches of government. They are judge-kings.
Roark66 · 12h ago
So did Bolsonaro have any basis for claiming the vote against him was rigged? If he did, fair enough. There should be an investigation into the rigging.
If the vote was fair, then there may be an excuse of bad advice. He should've known better, but it's possible someone lied to him.
And a third option, he lied knowing well that the vote was fair. I such case this is an attempt to undermine the state and it should be dealt with harshly. It's o E thing if some journalist makes BS claims. It's another if obe if candidates does so.
I genuinely have no idea which of these is true. I know for a fact the claim "we lost because of fraud" has been popularised by Trump and him basically not getting even a slap on the wrist for it. So it gets used everywhere now.
matheusmoreira · 1h ago
> So did Bolsonaro have any basis for claiming the vote against him was rigged? If he did, fair enough.
To start with: voting machines. Surely we need not debate the problems with such technology in Hacker News of all places? I don't really need to elaborate on this matter, right?
Then there's the fact our elected congress tried to add an auditable paper trail to the machines not once but twice and in both instances was overruled by the unelected supreme court. More details here:
> There should be an investigation into the rigging.
And who would investigate such a thing?
One of the supreme court judges, Alexandre de Moraes, was also the head of the so called Electoral Court at the time. Yes, the same guy who's judging Bolsonaro now. He's in charge of the voting machines. I have videos of him proudly proclaiming that the machines are UNQUESTIONABLE. One would think he'd have the balls to publish the source code and hardware schematics and offer a billion dollar bug bounty.
> I genuinely have no idea which of these is true
I'll tell you what I saw.
In the months leading up to the 2022 elections, I personally witnessed these judges interfere with the elections in unprecedented ways. I watched them call everything Bolsonaro and his party said "fake news" and issue countless censorship orders. I view it as something of a nationwide gaslighting campaign.
Suddenly, everything was "fake news". It was "fake news" to say Lula had been imprisoned for corruption, even though he had been. It was "fake news" to say he's friends with communist dictators, even though he is. It was "fake news" to say he's the preferred candidate of the country's organized crime gangs, even though he is. They even deemed it "fake news" to say he's a communist and a socialist himself, even though there's literal video evidence of it. I watched them censor a documentary about the assassination attempt on Boldonaro as "fake news" despite the fact the documentary had not even been released yet. A priori censorship, something not seen in these lands since the military dictatorship of the 20th century.
All this happened even though in Brazil censorship is unconstitutional, especially censorship of political speech. Censorship equals dictatorship, it's that simple. People who protested this have been sent to jail already. Brazilian journalists and even streamers have sought political asylum in the USA because of these events.
People keep talking about Bolsonaro's alleged coup that never actually materialized. They ignore the silent coup perpetrated by these unelected judges. They have been relentlessly grabbing power since at least 2019. Now they have essentially usurped the legislative and the executive branches of government. Yes, they legislate and they execute. They recently decided to make social media companies liable for user content, despite actual laws to the contrary. Just a few days ago they raised taxes on the brazilian population despite our elected congress blocking the taxation.
Brazilian politics are a shitshow and neither Lula nor Bolsonaro are saints.
But Trump exerting pressure like this is another level.
e40 · 10h ago
This “both sides” shit has to stop! They are not equivalent in their badness.
orwin · 9h ago
People constantly "both side" genocides when they happen, don't be surprised when they both side less significant things.
claytongulick · 8h ago
What's the alternative?
"We're right and you're wrong!"
That's sure to lead to more nuance and critical thought.
matheusmoreira · 26m ago
The alternative is "we're bad but the other side is so much worse their continued existence should be literally illegal".
In Brazil, nazism is illegal but socialism and communism are not. They should be.
e40 · 6h ago
That is intellectually very dishonest. That's not what I said and not even close.
libertine · 14h ago
It's challenging to comprehend this administration's "Strong with the weak, weak with the strong" approach to geopolitics.
What's the end game here?
saubeidl · 13h ago
The end game is a club of authoritarians and an end to liberal democracy worldwide.
msgodel · 13h ago
The proponents of liberal democracy should have sold it better.
motorest · 12h ago
> The proponents of liberal democracy should have sold it better.
That sounds an awful lot like victim-blaming.
What's worse is that your blend of comments somehow omits the fact that fascism is not being openly pushed onto people. Instead, fascists frame their intentions as granting them the authority to impose populist policies within the framework of liberal democracies. The problem is that, as Nazi Germany proved, once these fascists are in power they pull a bait-and-switch onto their own supporters.
saubeidl · 12h ago
It is fascist rhetoric taking delight that their authoritarian project has succeeded.
libertine · 10h ago
Russia has been the main sponsor of fascism. They have full networks pushing content promoting and platforming it, and nothing is done about this.
watwut · 11h ago
To be fair, German Nazi were openly against democracy. It was not bait and switch, it was you get what you was promised.
Contemporary fascists pay lit service to it and like to accuse opponents of not being democratic. Tho, to large extend, conservatives lead by Trump are also doing what was known they will do.
saubeidl · 12h ago
I don't disagree.
Liberal Democracy inevitably leads to corporate capture and then Fascism, as the US is demonstrating beautifully right now.
The ideal form of government is Titoism, with strong repression of regressive forces.
pqtyw · 12h ago
> with strong repression of regressive forces.
Things like freedom of speech or political organizations which are not subservient to the state?
Of course unrestricted freedom of speech can devolve into whatever has been happening in the US for quite a while but still... don't see how "enlightened totalitarianism" is an answer to that.
ta1243 · 11h ago
The problem the US has is it's unwavering belief that state = bad, not state = good
This tends to allow corporations to do all the bad things that states can do, with no checks or balances.
Other countries have a far larger mistrust of corporations and use their voice in the state to attempt to moderate that.
pqtyw · 10h ago
> belief that state = bad, not state = good
authoritarian state that restricts basic individual freedoms = bad
Not sure sure how could you have inferred anything else from my comment.
> Other countries have a far larger mistrust of corporations
Grass is always greener and such. Corporations in Europe have massive amounts of political influence. They are just not as good at making money as American corporations so have less resources to spend on stuff like that.
Yeul · 11h ago
Americans have this naive belief that they can withstand corruption.
ta1243 · 11h ago
> Liberal Democracy inevitably leads to corporate capture
Does it? Is this a major problem in say Sweden, or Switzerland, or New Zealand?
jemmyw · 1h ago
Yes, in New Zealand we've had at least 3 cases already reported with the current conservative government where corporations have captured regulation.
msgodel · 12h ago
Yeah that's the problem with it. It wasn't communist and aggressive enough. Certainly everyone would have wanted it if it were.
saubeidl · 9h ago
That's the beautiful thing, if it had been communist and aggressive, it wouldn't have mattered if the fascists wanted it or not.
msgodel · 6h ago
>Why is everyone suddenly tearing down all our shared institutions? All we wanted to do was force a communist revolution on them!
saubeidl · 6h ago
It is the other way around. The tear-down of the shared institutions proves that a communist revolution would've been the right move in hindsight.
hollerith · 6h ago
At least you admit you want a communist revolution rather than using euphemisms like "aligning governmental policy with science and reason" or "programs informed by a root-cause analysis".
saubeidl · 4h ago
By the way, I share the worry you express in your profile. Imo, eco-socialism is the only way out, there's no way capital interests will give up on burning our planet in their attempt to finally become fully independent of labor. Do you have any better ideas?
hollerith · 4h ago
Although I don't think communism is a good idea, we find ourselves facing a danger and a menace much more potent than communism IMHO, so I would warmly welcome a communist takeover of my country (the US) if it would reliably stop AI research in my country and keep it stopped. (I'm OK with people's continuing to use models that have already seen widespread usage: it's the training of large new models I want to stop -- that and any attempts to improve human understanding of the fundamentals of machine learning.)
But I tend to think that most communists are neutral or positive in their attitude toward AI research. For example, according to a credible China expert, Xi Jinping has directed China to pursue AI research very aggressively.
saubeidl · 4h ago
In my ideal world, the main priority post-revolution would be to freeze development and prioritize saving our climate so we keep having a livable planet - green energy, public transport, etc etc.
Once that monumental task is done (and this is where we might disagree, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts - my position there is not very firm!) I feel like looking at AI again - while keeping environmental constraints in mind, might be worth a try. The end goal would be utopian star trek post-resource-constraint society, a classless, socialist society in the humanistic sense - where everyone's needs are met and conflicts around resource allocation are a thing of the past.
Re your last edit - ask three socialists and you will get five conflicting takes, I definitely disagree with Xi on most things, though I do think he's doing a good job in things like building the Chinese high speed rail network.
hollerith · 3h ago
If some bright young person (or more realistically some sequence of bright young people building on each other's work) were to devise a plausible method to control an AI such that it stays under human control even if it become much more cognitively capable than the most capable people, then I would be OK with going ahead with AI research.
I don't think most readers here realize just how little control the AI labs have over their creations and how reliant they are on trial and error for implementing what control they do have. Of course, as soon as it becomes critical to keep an AI under control (namely, when its capabilities start to exceed human capabilities) is exactly when a lab will stop being able to rely on trial and error: specifically, the next time the lab makes an unsuccessful try, the AI will tend to arrange things so that the lab doesn't get any more tries.
saubeidl · 3h ago
I think we are in agreement then. Welcome to the Popular Front [0], comrade ;)
As Rosa Luxemburg said, it's socialism or barbarism. It is unfortunate we seem to be going down the path of the latter. To me, it proves the non-viability of electoralism.
msgodel · 5h ago
The biggest thing that makes communism just completely non-viable is the simultaneous demand for socialism/democracy and internationalism.
Different people just aren't going to agree on social norms and some groups are going to abuse certain things more than other groups. In the past between freedom of association and low levels of migration people could kind of work that out but when you force people to use public services for everything that's completely impossible.
You get one or the other at most. Both at the same time is an immediate non-starter for pretty much everyone.
madaxe_again · 12h ago
It’s just the same old same old. The U.S. is the country that bought Suharto and saddam hussein to power, that cosied up with the Khmer Rouge and pinochet, that trained and supported bin laden, enabled the contras and Mubarak, etc. - and these are just a handful of recent examples.
The only difference is that these guys are perhaps more brazen about it, as they’ve realised it makes no difference to their electability.
throw0101d · 10h ago
> What's the end game here?
You assume that there is a long-term strategy: why do you think there is one?
What evidence do you have that Trump cares about anything more than the current day's headlines and whatever whims take his fancy in a particular moment?
Apparently this (fueled by family members lobbying) has backfired in Brazil as members of Bolsonaro's base are disaponted by what is perceived as his anti national behaviour.
Bolsonaro was the one who revived brazilian nationalism against all odds. Lula and his communists likened it to Nazi Germany and made it their explicit goal to destroy said nationalism. Now that the USA is sanctioning them, they're appealing to nationalism? They shit all over the military then call upon them when their "sovereignty" is threatened? That's hilarious, comical.
I for one would very much rather see this country burn than see it governed by the unelected courts. Maybe then a nation that's actually worthy of nationalism will rise from its ashes.
while staying in US. Funny how a lot of "nationalists" run to the mothership when something goes wrong.
He's still the person who managed to revive brazilian nationalism against all odds and despite the hipocrisy. Surely that's not in dispute here?
Not really a revelation though. The ones with most of the power always leveraged any tool they had at their disposal to have their way and press everyone else into compliance. Sometimes it's carrot, sometimes it's stick. And they always applied rules selectively based not on what but on who. Just like the mafia, carving out special rules and dispensations for themselves.
Interference in other countries' affairs was the name of the game for at least a century. But for a long time now the US has no need to offer the carrot at all seeing how most times they can get anything they want with just the threat of the stick.
In this case not having a visa is probably a blessing in disguise. Better to know you're not wanted before you are detained at the border and "accidentally" extradited directly to a prison's gate.
Would recommend reading chapters 2 & 3 of this, on early 60s grappling with how to achieve arms control between antagonistic and equivalent powers, via constructing scenarios where it’s in mutual self-interest: https://archive.org/details/armscontroldisar013124mbp/page/n...
It’s been a while since Americans have had to burn brain power to solve problems like this, but it has happened before.
Sounds like you know more about it than me.
Can you explain?
I have to say, it is cute to read your faux outrage over this after Bolsonaro made sure the guy with the best chances to defeat him two elections back would be put into prison in a sham trial right before the election... not persecuting a figure as corrupt and power hungry as Bolsonaro would be 100% ethically wrong.
Not saying that Bolsonaro has any moral high ground to stand on, though. He is as corrupt as it gets. But if anything, I'd say that his problems really started when he was already elected and colluded with the Supreme Court to get Lula out of prison in exchange of killing the investigation against his sons.
I meant the guy had a concrete plan to topple democracy, assassinate other leaders and bring back dictatorship.
People like this should be thrown into prison for the rest of their lives.
You do realize the supreme court has been grabbing power since 2019 and by now is essentially running the country, right? A few days ago they once again walked all over our elected congress. Our institutions exist to give people the illusion of democracy. In fact, these unelected judges have usurped the powers of the legislative and executive branches of government. They are judge-kings.
If the vote was fair, then there may be an excuse of bad advice. He should've known better, but it's possible someone lied to him.
And a third option, he lied knowing well that the vote was fair. I such case this is an attempt to undermine the state and it should be dealt with harshly. It's o E thing if some journalist makes BS claims. It's another if obe if candidates does so.
I genuinely have no idea which of these is true. I know for a fact the claim "we lost because of fraud" has been popularised by Trump and him basically not getting even a slap on the wrist for it. So it gets used everywhere now.
To start with: voting machines. Surely we need not debate the problems with such technology in Hacker News of all places? I don't really need to elaborate on this matter, right?
Then there's the fact our elected congress tried to add an auditable paper trail to the machines not once but twice and in both instances was overruled by the unelected supreme court. More details here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
> There should be an investigation into the rigging.
And who would investigate such a thing?
One of the supreme court judges, Alexandre de Moraes, was also the head of the so called Electoral Court at the time. Yes, the same guy who's judging Bolsonaro now. He's in charge of the voting machines. I have videos of him proudly proclaiming that the machines are UNQUESTIONABLE. One would think he'd have the balls to publish the source code and hardware schematics and offer a billion dollar bug bounty.
> I genuinely have no idea which of these is true
I'll tell you what I saw.
In the months leading up to the 2022 elections, I personally witnessed these judges interfere with the elections in unprecedented ways. I watched them call everything Bolsonaro and his party said "fake news" and issue countless censorship orders. I view it as something of a nationwide gaslighting campaign.
Suddenly, everything was "fake news". It was "fake news" to say Lula had been imprisoned for corruption, even though he had been. It was "fake news" to say he's friends with communist dictators, even though he is. It was "fake news" to say he's the preferred candidate of the country's organized crime gangs, even though he is. They even deemed it "fake news" to say he's a communist and a socialist himself, even though there's literal video evidence of it. I watched them censor a documentary about the assassination attempt on Boldonaro as "fake news" despite the fact the documentary had not even been released yet. A priori censorship, something not seen in these lands since the military dictatorship of the 20th century.
All this happened even though in Brazil censorship is unconstitutional, especially censorship of political speech. Censorship equals dictatorship, it's that simple. People who protested this have been sent to jail already. Brazilian journalists and even streamers have sought political asylum in the USA because of these events.
People keep talking about Bolsonaro's alleged coup that never actually materialized. They ignore the silent coup perpetrated by these unelected judges. They have been relentlessly grabbing power since at least 2019. Now they have essentially usurped the legislative and the executive branches of government. Yes, they legislate and they execute. They recently decided to make social media companies liable for user content, despite actual laws to the contrary. Just a few days ago they raised taxes on the brazilian population despite our elected congress blocking the taxation.
More details about the supreme court's abuses:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
But Trump exerting pressure like this is another level.
"We're right and you're wrong!"
That's sure to lead to more nuance and critical thought.
In Brazil, nazism is illegal but socialism and communism are not. They should be.
What's the end game here?
That sounds an awful lot like victim-blaming.
What's worse is that your blend of comments somehow omits the fact that fascism is not being openly pushed onto people. Instead, fascists frame their intentions as granting them the authority to impose populist policies within the framework of liberal democracies. The problem is that, as Nazi Germany proved, once these fascists are in power they pull a bait-and-switch onto their own supporters.
Contemporary fascists pay lit service to it and like to accuse opponents of not being democratic. Tho, to large extend, conservatives lead by Trump are also doing what was known they will do.
Liberal Democracy inevitably leads to corporate capture and then Fascism, as the US is demonstrating beautifully right now.
The ideal form of government is Titoism, with strong repression of regressive forces.
Things like freedom of speech or political organizations which are not subservient to the state?
Of course unrestricted freedom of speech can devolve into whatever has been happening in the US for quite a while but still... don't see how "enlightened totalitarianism" is an answer to that.
This tends to allow corporations to do all the bad things that states can do, with no checks or balances.
Other countries have a far larger mistrust of corporations and use their voice in the state to attempt to moderate that.
authoritarian state that restricts basic individual freedoms = bad
Not sure sure how could you have inferred anything else from my comment.
> Other countries have a far larger mistrust of corporations
Grass is always greener and such. Corporations in Europe have massive amounts of political influence. They are just not as good at making money as American corporations so have less resources to spend on stuff like that.
Does it? Is this a major problem in say Sweden, or Switzerland, or New Zealand?
But I tend to think that most communists are neutral or positive in their attitude toward AI research. For example, according to a credible China expert, Xi Jinping has directed China to pursue AI research very aggressively.
Once that monumental task is done (and this is where we might disagree, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts - my position there is not very firm!) I feel like looking at AI again - while keeping environmental constraints in mind, might be worth a try. The end goal would be utopian star trek post-resource-constraint society, a classless, socialist society in the humanistic sense - where everyone's needs are met and conflicts around resource allocation are a thing of the past.
Re your last edit - ask three socialists and you will get five conflicting takes, I definitely disagree with Xi on most things, though I do think he's doing a good job in things like building the Chinese high speed rail network.
I don't think most readers here realize just how little control the AI labs have over their creations and how reliant they are on trial and error for implementing what control they do have. Of course, as soon as it becomes critical to keep an AI under control (namely, when its capabilities start to exceed human capabilities) is exactly when a lab will stop being able to rely on trial and error: specifically, the next time the lab makes an unsuccessful try, the AI will tend to arrange things so that the lab doesn't get any more tries.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front
Different people just aren't going to agree on social norms and some groups are going to abuse certain things more than other groups. In the past between freedom of association and low levels of migration people could kind of work that out but when you force people to use public services for everything that's completely impossible.
You get one or the other at most. Both at the same time is an immediate non-starter for pretty much everyone.
The only difference is that these guys are perhaps more brazen about it, as they’ve realised it makes no difference to their electability.
You assume that there is a long-term strategy: why do you think there is one?
What evidence do you have that Trump cares about anything more than the current day's headlines and whatever whims take his fancy in a particular moment?