[Marxism] Re: Re: A Henwood-Featherstone-Parenti article

Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at resist.ca
Thu Feb 12 23:01:59 MST 2004

Louis P wrote:
I think you might be reading too much into the coup against Goulart.
Washington's main complaint was that he maintained a neutral foreign
policy. Compare this with the following:

In the first two weeks of July the president of Brazil, Mr. Lula da
Silva; his chancellor, Celso Amorim; and their ambassador in Cuba,
Tilden Santiago (a former priest, a follower of the theology of
liberation, and intimate friend of the dictator Fidel Castro), made
important pronouncements that favor, try to justify, and lend support to
the bloody communist dictatorship of Cuba, which for more than forty
years has oppressed twelve million of my Cuban brothers.
Goulart did far more than that; but in the day when there was a USSR, 
foreign policy was a higher priority than today, where preferential 
economic relations are far more the concern than whether or not Fidel gets 
your public respect (which gives one a lot of credibility in Lat Am.).

Having just gone over Goulart's deposition in Killing Hope in the last 
couple of days, it is a lot fresher. Some of the points raised by Blum.
Criticism of the FTAA not withstanding, Lula's government has not done 
anything on economic relations with imperialism. Instead, along with 
setting up a "friends of Venezuela committee" loaded with enemies of Chavez 
and Bolivarism, Lula has fired the very party members who would be his best 
allies in an economic confrontation with imperialism. Contrast Goulart 
(according to Blum, KH):
"The Goulart administration, moreover, passed a law limiting the amount of 
profits multinationals could transmit out of the country, and a subsidiary 
of ITT was nationalized. Compensation for the takeover was slow in coming 
And later on about labour there are descriptions of the AFL-CIA op to 
'counter' the 'communist' influence on the unions and workers generally.

Of course, none of this makes Goulart someone the left ought to lionise. 
But again, he certainly did do more than Lula-- with about the same foreign 

The evidence that is to be shown in your article is partly how rabid the 
media are treating Lula, to indicate the psy-ops are underway. But that 
isn't new either:

(Blum, KH:) "CIA money found its way to a chain of right wing newspapers 
[....] and for the formation of women's groups with their special Latin 
mothers' emphasis on the Godlessness of the communist enemy. The women and 
other CIA operatives also went into the rumpur mongering business, 
spreading stories about outrages Goulart and his cronies were supposed to 
be planning, such as altering the constitution so as to extend his term, 
and gossip about Goulart being a cuckold and a wife beater.
	All this to overthrow a man who, in April 1962, had received a ticker tape 
parade in New York City[...]"

That reminds me, oh friends of Cuba, of a similar psy-op to Operation Peter 
Pan. Lula is a bell weather for better days in Lat Am, despite himself, 
because there is a radicalization under way among other sectors of Lat Am 
that keeps propelling them forward, and forcing things like the decent 
(though mild) foreign policy. It is the struggles of Brazilians despite 
Lua, not in concert with, that makes Latin America currently the most 
exciting part of humanity.

Macdonald Stainsby
In the contradiction lies the hope

More information about the Marxism mailing list