Ciro Gomes sometimes made several right and left criticisms of Lula (who, in fact, always negotiated and bowed to our bloody and ungrateful bourgeoisie), and also made many other unjust and reactionary ones. As a result of personal and pre-election opportunism, she has lately been oriented towards the latter and has been openly and openly right-wing, appealing to Oudinist and biased moralism. Thus, he became a late knight of posthumous Lavajatism and is directly responsible for the rise in intentions to vote for Bolsonaro.

Also, this year’s elections are not about Lula, but about Bolsonaro. Not understanding this, not understanding that the latter must be defeated as quickly as possible, is not understanding anything that has been happening in the country since 2016. Ciro has always been an impulsive general, and perhaps for some, he was an even more determined general than Lula. But the political struggle is not essentially a struggle of individuals. The notion that the national solution will consist in the selection of competent persons who, once at the head of the state, conceived as a neutral arbiter, will put into practice their brilliant ideas, is nothing but an ideology cultivated by the petty-bourgeois sections, is largely enlightened and competent in their professional lives. In this perspective, the masses of the people appear only as a vulgar being, tied to a “system of needs”, a kind of support, a passive base, from which true spirits seek to carry out good plans so that history can proceed rationally.

Heads of their Holy Families and successful in the realm of the market or social machine, endowed with meaning, our Kyrist “anti-polarization” progressives do not believe in any progress that their counterparts in the political realm have not made. . Once at the helm of the state, “ethical and prepared” politicians, using post-Keynesian guidelines, will solve tasks that collective subjects are not able to perform, as for the old French enlighteners, the reproduction of a stable and obsolete “old regime” could only be broken by the “external” action of the brave and prudent enlightened despots.

Unlike Lula, Ciro Gomez has always been a general without an army, a leader without the masses, a leader without a people. There are no social movements and collective historical experience behind this. His support is himself, he and his “enlightened conscience”. A political amateur with Bonapartist traits, Ciro Gomes is more and more himself, he and his political program, heteroclimatic, combining economic growth with austerity.

The socialist left must obviously support and at the same time criticize Lulu for his commitments, because it is he who can actually defeat Bolsonaro in elections, and it is he who, subsequently, in the government, may be required by his mass bases (in especially the most organized sectors) not to fall into the same mistakes and alliances that led to the conservative wave, the coup and Bolsonaro’s victory. Ciro Gomes, without organized bases, is becoming more and more just an adventurer, and now an adventurer, undoubtedly on the right. There is no reason to support. Even the controversial 2018 argument that he alone would beat Bolsonaro in the second round makes more sense.

Courage was replaced by assertiveness, and morality by cowardice. If this time he again declares himself neutral in the second round between moderate social democracy and genocidal neo-fascism, Paris will once again be a suitable destination, but not for the “anti-polarizing” escapism of cafes and the Sorbonne, but this time inevitably Père Lachaise.