WEBSITE FUNDED BY THE






G20 FROM BELOW







Lula and the Historical Limit of Reformism

Enrique Chinaski, Socialismo Revolucionario (CWI Chile) Brazil 13 October 2026

The first round of the Brazilian elections leaves a question that the left should not dodge. Lula finished second against Flávio Bolsonaro, with 45.16% against 47.03%, and lost around 3.4 million votes compared to the first round of 2022. Beyond the electoral result, the politically significant fact is the wear and tear of a government that came to power promising to represent the workers and the poorest sectors again.

The explanation cannot be reduced to the advance of the right. We must also look at the limitations of the Lulista project.

Lula promised a reduction in the working day, the end of the 6×1 scale of working days (six days on, one day off), greater rights for platform/gig workers, an increase in the minimum wage, housing and social policies. Some measures advanced; others were left pending or unfinished. But reducing the problem to a list of unfulfilled promises would be insufficient.

| The central question is why a left-wing government finds it so difficult to carry out even its most basic reforms.

Limit Not only Lula
The fundamental problem of Lulism is its reformist strategy: it aims to improve the lives of workers by maintaining the fundamental economic structures of capitalism.

To govern, Lula needs to negotiate with Congress, with businessmen, with large economic interests and with the institutions of the state. But the demands of the workers have an obvious limit for those who control capital.

A significant increase in wages, a reduction in working hours or greater rights for workers can affect corporate profits. Therefore, as long as the economy continues to be organised around the private ownership of the large means of production and the search for profitability, the reforms will have limits that no government can eliminate simply through good intentions.

This is the contradiction that reformism fails to resolve: it wants to transform the living conditions of the majority without transforming the power relations that produce those conditions.

From Reform to Revolution
The problem is not that the reforms are useless. On the contrary: every conquest that improves the living conditions of the workers has value and must be defended.

The problem arises when these conquests are presented as the definitive path to a just society.

A higher wage does not eliminate exploitation. A shorter working day does not eliminate the power of capital over production. A social program can reduce poverty, but it does not eliminate the economic relations that reproduce inequality.

For this reason, the struggle for reforms must be linked to a perspective of revolutionary transformation.

The decisive question is who controls wealth and who makes the fundamental decisions of the economy.

From this perspective, workers should not limit themselves to pressuring governments to make reforms. They must organize themselves to conquer political and economic power and bring the main means of production under the democratic control of the working class itself.

That means building trade union and popular organisations capable of disputing power from below and developing a political alternative independent of business interests.

The Real Brazilian Lesson
If Lula loses the second round, the left should not limit itself to saying that Brazilian society has turned to the right. It should also ask itself why a government that presented itself as a defender of workers failed to turn its expectations into sufficiently profound transformations.

The answer is not to seek a more efficient reformism. It is in recognizing that there is a contradiction between administering capitalism and ending the conditions that produce exploitation and poverty.

Lula’s problem, then, is not simply Lula. It is the political project he represents.

The Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) could have raised an alternative but gave up doing so, not even presenting its own presidential candidacy in the first round to take advantage of the opportunity to offer a path to those who were disappointed with the unfulfilled expectations of the Lula government. Defending anti-capitalist public policies for the benefit of the people, the poor and the workers would have strengthened the struggle against Bolsonaro. But by becoming more Lulist than Lula, the PSOL gave up on building a solid dam against the advance of Bolsonarism.

As long as the left limits its objectives to better administering capitalist society, its conquests will be conditioned by the power of those who control the economy. The revolutionary alternative proposes another direction: that the workers go from being voters and beneficiaries of reforms to becoming the protagonists of political and economic power.

Because a truly dignified life for the majority cannot depend eternally on the promises of a government.

The revolutionary thesis is simple: reforms can achieve improvements; only a transformation of economic power can create the conditions to definitively overcome exploitation and poverty. And this transformation can only be the work of the organized workers themselves.
https://www.socialistworld.net/2026/10/13/brazil-lula-and-the-historical-limit-of-reformism-2/?

Back



Thanks for visting the G20 From Below Website. If you want something published here or other enquiries mailto:Brics-from-below@protonmail.com

Please Visit the BRICs from below website. The BRICs from below website was established in 2016 to news and analysis on worker and community protests in the BRICS countries and against the activities of BRICS based multinationals especially in Africa. The G20From Below website was set up in to 2025 to extened this work to the G20 countries.



Introducing BRICS from above, BRICS from the middle and BRICS from below

BRICS FROM ABOVE
Heads of state, Business Forum, elite allies
*BRICS as anti-imperialist (ANC & Pretoria rhetoric – “Talk Left, Walk Right”, e.g. national-liberation tradition, foreign ministry on global geopolitics, finance minister on IMF reform, sports minister on FIFA)
*BRICS as sub-imperialist (Pretoria relegitimising world capitalism, lubricating neoliberalism in - and exploiting - Africa, intensifying class war against SA’s poor/workers/women/nature on behalf of global/local capital, ensuring maximum greenhouse gas emissions alongside BASIC/US no matter local/continental/global consequences, and playing “deputy sheriff” role to imperialism)
*BRICS as inter-imperialist (Pretoria's potential support for a new internet delinked from US, promotion of Putin v Obama in September 2013 at G20, and mainly backing Russia in Crimea/Ukraine conflict - as well as earlier episodes where SA lined up with China in UN e.g. in relation to Burma)

BRICS FROM THE MIDDLE
Academic Forum, trade unions, NGOs
BRICS advocates (most of Academic Forum, Johannesburg & Pretoria “think tanks” and others who suffer persistent “failure of analytical nerve”)
*wait-and-see (most NGOs and trade unions - as well as “Third Worldist” intellectuals - who wish for BRICS to become “anti-impi” at UN, Bretton Woods Institutions, Development Bank, Contingent Reserve Arrangement, etc)
*critics (those associated with brics-from-below network who consider BRICS to be “sub-impis” and sometimes also “inter-impis”)

BRICS FROM BELOW
Grassroots activists whose visions run local to global
*localist (stuck within local or sectoral silos, including myriad “popcorn protests” - even some against BRICS corporations or projects - that are insurgent, unstrategic, momentary, at constant risk of becoming xenophobic, and prone to populist demagoguery)
*nationally-bound (most activists who are vaguely aware of - and hostile to - BRICS yet so overwhelmed by local, national and sectoral battles, they fail to link across borders - even BRICS hinterlands)
*solidaristic-internationalist (“global justice movement” allies aspiring for joint campaigning against common BRICS enemies such as Vale, China Development Bank, DBSA, Transnet/mega-shipping, fossil fuel corporations and other polluters, coming BRICS Development Bank)

JEALOUS PRO-WEST CAPITALISTS
Most white organic intellectuals of capital connected to Old Money, multinational-corporate branch plants, Business Day, northern-centric big biz, Democratic Alliance and their ilk.


© Copyright G20 from below