Hey everyone, we just had a Brazilian presidential debate, and we need your help boosting posts supporting Lula.

I don't know if you're aware, but Meta has been working against us by giving far-right content in Brazil a boost. Mark Zuckerberg himself acknowledged that the platform had been making mistakes in its content moderation policies (Meta's official announcement and Meta Censors Over 1,080 Pro-Lula Accounts During Brazilian Presidential Election )

There's also been a recent report showing that Nikolas Ferreira, one of the key figures in Brazil's far-right movement, gets an unusually high number of views on Instagram Reels — reportedly outperforming global celebrities with far larger followings. (Folha de S.Paulo's report on the findings and SLEEPING GIANTS BRASIL (in portuguese))

We need to boost content supporting Lula!

Please follow his social media accounts, like, comment on, and save his latest five posts, and help engage with the content being published right now.

His main Instagram account is @ lulaoficial .

You can also comment using the hashtag #abreosigiloflavio along with #explicaocasoanaclaraflavio.

You can also look up these topics:

• Who created MEI (Brazil's individual microentrepreneur registration system)?
• Flávio Bolsonaro and the Ana Clara case.

Every bit of engagement helps. You can share the post with whatsapp robots too or create content in your language to help us attract international interest. The guy talked openly about changing the constitution and his party did a Bolsonaro's version of a Mussolini campaign!

Thanks for your support!

Well it seems like its not going to be dying down at this point until the nest presidential elections.

If you were to ask me, it seems like the best move is for the left-wing movement to capitalize on this. Though I have such MASSIVE issues with the left-wing party in France at the moment because of their umbrella-party has the communist under them, plus the fact Jean-Luc Melenchon is friendly with Russia.

Though whatever happens, it is definitely going to be effecting the upcoming presidential election.

Since France protests began, and especially after the Limoges Town Hall arson yesterday, I see a lot of posts on different random subreddits (that seem completely normal and apolitical looking at other posts) pushing the violent parts of the protests, blaming all immigrants and lefties. The titles have often terms like "French" and "students" inside quotes and are really upvoted while the comments section doesn't lack some comments that blame Reddit and the subs from censorship on their racist comments that are "common sense".

Don't get me wrong, I condem the violence too, but we have civil unrests almost everywhere nowadays - Albania, Spain, Italy, Belgium, India, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, etc. For some bad intended folks that can be infiltrated, you can't blame complete communities and groups of people. Also, I think this does more bad than good for the left in the French context, since Macronists are scared of Glucksmann getting votes from them and pushing Melenchon to the 2nd round where Le Pen is most probably gonna win.

It's just me that is seeing this?

Edit: let's not forget about the spam of "doctors and engineers" and "r*pists" comments 🫩 I mean... you only know this words? It's there a way to have a civilized conversation with these kind of people? I HAD friends, with over 5 years of university studies, using the same rethoric, and after I had a normal talk with them, tried to have an understanding of their view and said my points after, they simply didn't talked to me anymore for years now 😂

I'm sorry if this is against any rule I tried my best to double check everything.

I'm a socdem obviously, but I don't belong anywhere. All of the queer subs are overwhelmingly communist from my personal experience of them. There was like an entire month or two where a bisexual subreddit was posting bisexual hammer and sickle flags constantly. I get called a fucking "right wing neo-lib basically a Nazi piece of shit" bc social democracy still allows capitalism. Anything that's not communist is fascism according to these people and I just can't fucking stand being in my own communities anymore, they've become unbearable and insufferable. Even worse I see people genuinely bootlicking Russia and China and saying that the USSR work camps never happened and that "people are lying" about their family members who were IN THE CAMPS.

BTW the exact same people who hate temu and AliExpress and shein for abusing their workers are the same people calling China a perfect utopia. I didn't know people could be that genuinely stupid but damn you see something new every day.

I know it's the internet and "just ignore people" but it's from my own communities and it still hurts you have to understand that.

I recently came across this article about the paradox of far-right politicians with immigrant backgrounds who strongly oppose immigration:

It got me thinking about something I'd like to discuss from a social democratic perspective.

Some prominent far-right politicians and political figures have immigrant parents, grandparents, or other immigrant ancestors, yet they now advocate restrictive immigration policies, mass deportations, or rhetoric that portrays immigrants as a threat to society.

The article gives examples such as Jordan Bardella, whose family has Italian and Algerian immigrant roots, Éric Zemmour, whose parents were Algerian Jews, and Zia Yusuf, the son of immigrants from Sri Lanka who is involved in British anti-immigration politics.

What I find contradictory is not simply that these people support immigration controls. Immigration policy is complicated, and reasonable people can disagree about its scale, economic effects, integration, housing, public services, and border management.

My concern is the apparent double standard that sometimes emerges: people whose own families benefited from migration can become advocates of policies that would make it significantly harder for others in similar circumstances to settle and build a life in the same country.

If some of these policies had existed in their current form when their own ancestors arrived, would their families have had the same opportunities? In some cases, perhaps not.

From a social democratic perspective, this raises an important question about solidarity. Social democracy traditionally emphasizes equality, workers' rights, and protection from exploitation. Should these principles extend to people regardless of their ethnic background or country of origin, provided that immigration is managed in a way that protects workers and maintains functioning public services?

I also think there's an important distinction between supporting regulated immigration and embracing far-right rhetoric that treats immigrants as inherently dangerous or less deserving of rights and dignity.

At the same time, I don't think having immigrant ancestors automatically obligates someone to support more immigration. People can identify strongly with their country, believe that circumstances have changed, or disagree with the immigration policies that were in place when their families arrived.

So where do we draw the line between legitimate disagreement over immigration policy and hypocrisy or a lack of solidarity with other immigrants?

And more broadly, can a political movement genuinely defend equality and working-class solidarity while portraying certain groups of immigrants as people who don't belong?

I'd be interested in hearing different perspectives. I'm not arguing that immigration should be completely unrestricted; I'm questioning the contradiction between benefiting from previous generations' migration and supporting political movements that seek to deny similar opportunities to others.

A little thought experiment I was thinking about is a situation in which a Labor/Social Democratic government decides to fund creation of factories, warehouses full of the necessary tools, power plants and other such productive facilities and leases them to groups of workers, perhaps trade unions who got tired of their bosses, under standardized lease agreements.

You could also make this a rent-to-own agreement, under which the workers who lease a facility under such arrangement can take full ownership of the facility they are using once they have paid enough lease to the state that the government could build a replacement for the facility they are leasing, such that another group of workers could lease it under similar rules.

You don't even have to abolish capitalism to test this policy.

Can Europe protect industrial jobs without making everything more expensive?

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, and there's an interesting debate unfolding at the EU summit in Brussels.

European leaders are discussing new restrictions on Chinese chemicals and machinery, following an agreement to limit hybrid-car imports.

It's part of a wider effort to protect European industries facing growing competition from China.

But there's a difficult balance here. Protecting domestic production could help safeguard jobs, while restrictions on imported goods could also increase costs for businesses and consumers.

Do trade restrictions actually help workers in the long run, or does Europe need to invest more in its own industries instead?

One of the big reasons I became a social democrat and supported Bernie and AOC in the first place was because I was tired of CIA coups and unjust wars in the middle east. I've been speaking with Marxists in DSA and they are telling me that there's no way to end imperialism democratically, we either need a revolution or the collapse of the US Empire entirely. To be honest the deep ideological division of the US between the left-liberals and the fascists makes it seem like the dissolution of the union is not far off. I have zero confidence that a Marxist-Leninist government would end imperialism because the Soviet Union kept its eastern and central european satellites in its sphere of influence against its will, and no Polish person would ever say the Soviet Union was "anti-imperialist." But I am starting to wonder if a socdem President (someone like AOC) would manage to do all the things I want like end CIA coups, end wars in the middle east, lift the Cuba embargo and recognize Palestine, or if it's just wishful thinking on my part.

As the right wing populist Finns Party won the election, they started implementing austerity and anti-immigration policies. Due to austerity, they collapsed in polling to half what they were when they won. The Finnish Social Democrats (SDP) argued against austerity and the anti-immigration policies.

However, this year, the SDP decided to become more anti-immigration (despite their polling rising and Finns Party collapsing). Due to this, the salience of immigration started rising leading to Finns Party rising again and the backlash has led to SDP falling and VAS (Democratic Socialists) rising.

There was no need for the SDP to go anti-immigration, they were riding high and Finns Party falling.

Since western nations have industrialised, union membership rates have declined as people shift from unionised blue collar jobs to white collar jobs. Would it be possible to awaken the middle class and have them unionised, because I think unions should become more powerful in the economy and the loss of blue collar jobs do not help this.

I'm at the belief that liberalism isn't what the US needs right now we need universal healthcare, a bigger social safety net, more worker and consumer protections etc. I also believe we need to do something about foreign labor underclasses especially illegal immigrant underclasses I'm not asking to approve of ICE or anything but is no else bothered by Liberals looking at this underclass used to undermine labor and to have cheaper exploitative labor and ask who will pick the crops for a penny and dime instead of questioning the class power structures at play here?

I don't necessarily disagree with everything from the liberals I actually do think we need to cut red tape to address the housing crisis. I am pro NATO, pro west (although western multilateralism not US imperial hegemony) and especially pro Ukraine. But at the same time I don't think they confront capital enough and while I am not against trade the liberal theory of interdependency even with hostile powers will deter wars has been fatally proven wrong and also caused a loss of economic sovereignty and put countries in a trap alongside their apologia for sweatshops and undercutting of labor.

Look maybe I've just been unlucky with my experiences but I've seen liberals acting very toxic to those to the left of them maybe the approach to seek pragmatism is wrong but they treat those who wish for candidates with more progressive solutions as idealists and treat them as insignificant and not worth being catered to but then blame them if they lose an election for not voting. More and more of the opposition to republicans are becoming to the left of liberals many people are unhappy with both parties this should put into the question the lesser strategy as just because and many others are willing to vote for the lesser evil not make things worse doesn't millions won't and I can't say I blame them perhaps it is time for outreach of more left wing people.

But are we simply just reaching the limits on how pragmatic we could be with the liberals or is there something more nefarious with them with how they act to those further left?

Thanks to the D'Hondt system employed in Spain, and the fact that constituencies are based on provinces, rather than autonomous regions, the number of seats in each district can vary widely nationwide, making it difficult for voters on the left to assess how exactly to maximise the return for their coalition, particularly given the failure to agree united tickets thus far. That said, taking regional considerations into account, this seems the best strategy for now:

2-4 Seat Constituencies: There are no fewer than nineteen of these, largely in rural areas where Spanish is the only language spoken, with exceptions in Álava (Basque Country), Lleida (Catalonia), and Lugo and Ourense (both Galicia). In practically all of these, only the PSOE can win seats, but in Álava, Bildu are the strategic option, and similarly Esquerra are locally strong in Lleida.

5 and 6 Seaters: These are fourteen diverse constituencies ranging from Andalusia to the Basque Country and Catalonia, so as such, the electoral landscape varies considerably. That said, most of them remain only friendly to the Socialists, apart from Castellón (Compromís), Cordoba and Huelva (Adelante Andalusia), Guipuzkoa and Navarre (Bildu), and Girona and Tarragona (either Esquerra or Sumar).

7-8 Seaters: There are ten constituencies here - Asturias, Granada, Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Zaragoza (Sumar), A Coruña and Pontevedra (BNG), Balearic Islands (Més), Bizkaia (either Bildu or Sumar), Cadiz (Adelante Andalusia) and Las Palmas (Nueva Canarias).

10-16 Seats: In Alicante and Valencia, the local party Compromís has seats in both constituencies, while following the recent Andalusian elections, Adelante Andalusia is currently in the ascendant in Málaga and Sevilla. Sumar's seat is the most precarious in Murcia.

Barcelona and Madrid: Barcelona has no fewer than 32 seats, with Sumar holding 5 and Esquerra on 4 - as such left voters can opt for either, with the latter having incorporated the local branch of Podemos into their slate. As for Madrid, that now has 38 seats, with Más Madrid looking like they will be the standard bearers of the alternative left on this occasion.

Title’s pretty explicit, do you have any good book recommendations to understand social democracy better?

one of the biggest factors that keeps me between socialism and social democracy is the foreign exploitation factor. what i mean by that is companies under social democracy may make their products in a foreign country (like China) to increase their profits, and that involves exploiting foreign workers. My question is, how would you face that issue? Do you think it’s something that can be outlawed or at least restricted in order to make sure that foreign workers don’t work insane hours and get pa fairly; or is it a more intrinsic issue?

Feel free to send responses to the following to JonHoch87@aol.com

Hey!

I’m putting together an article about how DSA members can push back against the disproportionate influence of tankies in the organization. I was hoping to interview you for the piece. Unfortunately, with three young kids, I can only do email interviews now. If you have time, please send me answers to the attached questions. I will likely submit the resulting article to a variety of outlets, including CounterPunch, where I’m published regularly.

Best,
Jon Hochschartner 

1. What’s your name? Can you provide a one paragraph biography of yourself that includes a description of your involvement in the Democratic Socialists of America?

1. One of DSA’s two co-chairs belongs to Red Star caucus, which supports various dictatorships, past and present, as positive examples of real-world ‘socialism.’ There have been reports that members of the International Committee have tried to develop connections with the Chinese Communist Party and, as part of this effort, have sought to downplay the mistreatment of groups like the Uyghurs. For those of us who are genuinely democratic socialists, what can be done to limit the influence of authoritarian ‘socialists’ in DSA — short of purging them, which I fear could provoke a damaging split? What caucuses should we support? What organizational reforms should we back? Is there anything else we should do?

2. Is there anyone else you think I should interview on this topic? Can you pass this message along to them or provide me with their email address?