![]() And despite the early warnings of Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, it was not until the archives of the Soviet Gulag and KGB were exposed that the perils of a revolutionary workers’ paradise were audibly acknowledged by the American Left. ![]() But the 1960s still served to romanticize a lukewarm, sentimental socialism in America later ratified by expressions of envy for a maturing European “Third Way.” Pete Seeger and the Weavers picked their way through the banjo and guitar notes of old Wobbly songs to celebrate a bucolic age of labor before bosses became exploiters. ![]() The New Deal and Great Society programs of Social Security and unemployment insurance, together with the Civil Rights revolution, later mitigated the sense that peonage was still rife in America. In the sensibility of the 20th century, the Great Depression added to the worry that capitalism had gone awry, with Dorothea Lange pictures from the Farm Security Administration capturing the distress of migrant families from the Dust Bowl looking for work in California. When the Dakota territorial legislature refused to approve his right of way, he led a secessionist movement to create North Dakota and thereby gained a more congenial set of assemblymen. Hill equally complicated the reputation of entrepreneurs for political chastity. Their prowess as businessmen and inventors was offset by the optics of labor conflicts such as the Ludlow Mine massacre and the violent strikebreaking at Ford’s Dearborn factories. Even caricatures, after all, come from somewhere. Rockefeller assembling Standard Oil and Henry Ford turning out the black Model T might well have fit this caricature. His worship of wealth and indifference to its victims is antithetical, so critics would claim, to the ideal of equality centering the American republic.Ī century ago, the enormous success of entrepreneurs such as John D. He has his office, we surely suppose, in a factory belching dark smoke, with exhausted workers engaging in repetitive tasks for a pittance. The connection of meaning of Brazilian domination informs a strong relationship between the political operator born from the henchman, the elections, the exercise of political power and a cryptoplutocracy, present, at least since the 19th century, that set the tone in the Brazilian political system under the mantle of private financing of elections, controlling the wealth of Brazil in the hands of the plutocracy and perpetuating ignoble inequalities.To the ordinary person, the label “plutocrat” conjures Monopoly’s black-suited banker with mustachio and cigar, puffing his way to success without concern for his struggling neighbors. The methodology analyzes documents from the press and the judiciary around the Brazilian political crisis that started in 2013, builds an ideal-type and deduces an empirical type present in the political system. Based on the theoretical clues left by Maria Sylvia de Carvalho Franco, the objective is to search for an interpretation that considers the relationship between domination, violence and the perennial maintenance of inequality in Brazil within the framework of a always modern capitalism, compared with a interpretation of domination based on patrimonialism and backwardness. The article problematizes the notion of patrimonialism as the main explanatory reason for domination in Brazil, as present in several authors, especially Faoro (1958, 1974, 2022) and Scwartzman (2003, 2007). Patrimonialism, inequality, cryptoplutocracy, political operator, domination in Brazil Abstract
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |