WI: A Successful Socialist Brazil

[Oba]

Being that Brazil has been historically rather leftist, I do not see it as too far fetched for one of the following situations to take place, with the goal of getting a successful Brazilian socialist state of some sort; not the wicked and corrupt, Stalinist USSR or the genocidal Cambodia of Pol Pot:

1) João Goulart and his government were able to expose and stop the 1964 Coup and maintain his programmes and Brazilian sovereignty; in this ATKL, these would eventually lead to a democratic socialist state with a planned or market socialist economy.

2) A Brazil that installs a competent socialist despotate or a socialist illiberal democracy during the Great Depression, instead of Getúlio Vargas, much like OTL Singapore, with a planned or market socialist economy, that is a success and survives to the present day.

3) Getúlio Vargas rules for more or less his time in OTL but succeeds in successfully developing Brazil to the point where, when he is overthrown, some socialist movement, possibly democratic, possibly undemocratic, possibly a mixed government, is able to take power and better use Brazil's better developed industry and vast natural resources to largely expel the USA's foreign influence.

IMO, all these scenarios offer one of 4 plausible government types: Mixed, illiberal democracy, liberal democracy and despotate, of which I see mixed as the most likely, followed by despotate then illiberal democracy then finally liberal democracy. They offer the following economic systems (note: I do not count mixed economies, welfare states with capitalist economies and social democracy as socialist but somewhere between capitalism and socialism): Decentrally planned, market socialist and centrally planned.

In conclusion, I ask you all these questions: What would the effects of a socialist, more or less nonaligned and prosperous Brazil have on world history, economics and the Cold War as well?

 

[rule_them_all]

1) Feasible as far as economic matters go- however, I wouldn't try to tell that to the American aircraft carrier that was actually poised to strike in the bay of Rio de Janeiro, in case the coup failed.

2) The problem with 1930s Brazil was the lack of sane or moderate politicians- the main three candidates to become the leaders of Brazil in this time period were Luís Carlos Prestes, a famous communist revolutionary supported by Stalin but who was more of a Trotskyist; Plínio Salgado, leader of the infamous Integralist Movement AKA Nazis with a Brazilian flavour and race-mixing instead of racial purity as a goal; and of course Getúlio Vargas, who combined most of these characteristics, along with demagoguery and lots of scheming, eventually becoming one of the most Magnificent Bastard- type leaders of 20th Century Latin America.
And, again, if the Integralists win there's the problem of the cousin of the north.
To make this work, you would need a relatively known public figure- preferably from the military-who advocates leftist policies and rises to stardom after repressing the Constitutionalist Revolution in 1932. He then coups Vargas and destroys all opposition. This, of course, would need a rather nasty purge and could lead to a Civil war. Then again, Stalin did the same thing and got away with it. We would just need a leader that is as cold as Stalin.


3) Doable, but you need a POD that's earlier than 1900: If the Empire lasts for longer(with the Republican coup in 1889 being repressed), its rather Progressive industrial policies would allow for greater industrial development in Brazil in the 1890s than ever happened in 1889-1930. This would give the country a nice industrial backbone in the 1930s when Vargas comes to power; then again, the Empire lasting longer would butterfly many things away. Then again, after Pedro II died in, say, 1900 there wouldn't be much to support the empire and the Republic would happen either way.

 

[rule_them_all]

Will comment more on that later; BRB.

 

[Oba]

I apologize; I must not have been clear in my question: My idea was to have a successful socialist Brazil in terms of both political power and human development, not a corrupt, (quasi)totalitarian Stalinist or Maoist "Communist" state with a planned economy like the USSR post Stalin or the PRC, a Brazil that is nonaligned; I was looking for something more like Tito's Yugoslavia, Sandinista Nicaragua, a Singapore style government with a planned economy or some mixture of the 3.

I think the second (and maybe third?) situation is the most practical; the main thing that needs to be done is to give a noncommunist, socialist and sincere leader and get her/him a strong following.

I also think that it would be easiest to have the POD take place before WW2, largely so that Brazil is dealing with a much less bipolar world dominated solely by the USA and USSR and so that the USA has distractions in Europe. This would also make it so that Brazil does not have to deal with the Cold War era American military machine, making a low level war of attrition where Brazil wins quite likely.

Also, your response to situation 1 seems good but I would like to point out that a Soviet supported Vietnam had just as much a chance of surviving as a Brazil on its own in a war with the USA, while the Sandinistas in tiny Nicaragua lasted a very long time without significant Soviet support against the Contras. And I doubt the USA would nuke Brazil, so it would almost certainly be a conventional war.

 

[MAlexMatt]

Having a successful socialist state which wasn't a successful capitalist state beforehand is a bit ASB.

I mean, notice all the 'socialist' states in Europe that are doing the best just so happened to be the wealthiest capitalist states in the 19th century.

 

[Oba]

Having a successful socialist state which wasn't a successful capitalist state beforehand is a bit ASB.

I mean, notice all the 'socialist' states in Europe that are doing the best just so happened to be the wealthiest capitalist states in the 19th century.

First of all, as I said in my first post, I do not consider the Scandinavian welfare system to be socialist; it is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, a mixed system, not a socialist system but somewhere in between, probably leaning towards capitalism.

I think the case of a modern noncapitalist economy (either planned or market socialist) is interesting in Brazil especially, as there are several major factors that would lend it well to a planned economy that the USSR did not have when they started out:

1) The Brazilian Empire, from the little I know about it, was less corrupt and backward in many ways, especially culturally, than Tsarist Russia.

2) Unlike the Northern Eurasia of the USSR, Brazil has a HUGE amount of arable land that is not being practically used in OTL due to capitalist demand for soybeans and cattle in other countries over more logical, efficient and sustainable rainforest orchard crops; Brazil is quite simply not able to use this vast resource nearly as much as it could due to its lack of government control over the economy.

3) Though more of a cultural reason than an economic one, I think Brazil's lack of a single strong culture dominating it to the extent that the Russians did in the days of the Russian Empire makes it less likely to fall into a cronyist system is worth mentioning. In addition, its history of tolerance and multiculturalism, if relative to the China and Russia, makes it less likely to see such a strong, damaging dominance of special interest groups as in the USSR.

4) OTL Brazil's resources are exploited and extracted by various foreign interests that care little if anything about the Brazilian people; with a planned economy at least, this would not be able to happen. Furthermore, unlike Cuba, with its great lack of natural resources and small size hampering it from being more or less economically independent to the degree that the USSR was able to due to the latter's large size, Brazil has all the resources it needs to build a developed economy available domestically.

5) Brazil, with a sufficiently early POD (such as from the Edwardian Era to the Great Depression), could easily avoid WW2 if it had a competent government with the political and economic power and efficiency necessary to resist American pressure to join the Allies. This would help it stay nonaligned in the Cold War, preventing Soviet pressure and hegemony that would mess up its economy with their stupid system of economic planning.

6) Finally, OTL Brazil has a great amount of corruption, while Cuba has the least of any OTL Latin American state; furthermore, Cuba, despite its resource poor territory, has managed to stay ahead of the USA in literacy and equal the USA in life expectancy: With Brazil's vast resources and a competent and stable government, these and other achievements could easily be made. And Cuba was NOT industrialized before Fidel Castro came to power; though it may be poor in many ways, Cuba is still a rather unusually stable country by Latin American standards.

Well, that is all I have to say for now. I thank all who responded for their intelligent and thoughtful comments; I much appreciate differing opinions when well defended and thought out.

 

[MAlexMatt]

Cuba is another example of a country which had a moderately successful capitalist economy prior to the adoption of a socialist system. Afterwards it was dependent on the USSR for subsidizing its economy and has struggled to grow ever since. I would hardly hold it up as an example of 'success'.

Truth is statist economies all over the world have been falling since the 1970's, which was one of the driving forces behind the liberalization of the decades since. Positing a successful socialist Brazil is a bit like positing a democratic communist USSR: It's just not in the cards.

EDIT: I mean, it's telling that, after more than 40 years of political and economic 'stability', Cubans are still very poor by OECD standards. Meanwhile, to use the appropriate example, Brazilians have already surpassed Cubans in per capita terms after only about 15 years of economic stability.

 

[Oba]

What is it about planned economies that you think, in theory, makes them inferior to capitalist economies? Why could a planned economy with some sort of system of rewarding people for innovation and hard work and punishing laziness not be as, or more, successful than a capitalist economy?

I understand why a Soviet-style planned economy where everyone can basically slack off except when they pretend to work, so long as they obey their leaders, is not efficient or sustainable but what prevents a very different type of planned economy, as different from the Soviet-style planned economy as market socialism is from free market capitalism, could not be sustainable and prosper?

 

[MAlexMatt]

What about planned economies that you think, in theory, makes them inferior to capitalist economies? Why could a planned economy with some sort of system of rewarding people for innovation and hard work and punishing laziness not be as, or more, successful than a capitalist economy?

I understand why a Soviet-style planned economy where everyone can basically slack off except when they pretend to work, so long as they obey their leaders, is not efficient or sustainable but what prevents a very different type of planned economy, as different from the Soviet-style planned economy as market socialism is from free market capitalism, could not be sustainable and prosper?

They suffer from information problems: Information is costly, and must be gathered. Decentralized economic systems benefit from being capable of taking advantage of local information that centralized economic systems either can't take advantage of or require a lot of time and resources to acquire.

Assuming you invented the perfect set of incentives, a socialist system of planning would still always be poorer and less developed than its open market neighbors.

 

[Oba]

They suffer from information problems: Information is costly, and must be gathered. Decentralized economic systems benefit from being capable of taking advantage of local information that centralized economic systems either can't take advantage of or require a lot of time and resources to acquire.

Assuming you invented the perfect set of incentives, a socialist system of planning would still always be poorer and less developed than its open market neighbors.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that decentralized economies have an easier time gathering information?

If I am interpreting your statement about information correctly, and please tell me if I am not, I see it as a bit of a red herring due to the fact that the decentralized economy may have more access to information but a centralized economy may easily make better use of a given amount of information than a decentralized economy can. Also note that a "Market economy" is not the opposite of a "centralized economy": A planned economy is the opposite of a market economy, while a market economy may be centralized (as in state capitalism) and a decentralized economy may be planned.

 

[rule_them_all]

Just something I thought was worth mentioning. The TL that I was planning(which includes, SURPRISE! a failed 1964 coup) had Brazil, and eventually the entirety of Latin America, embracing the planned economy, with both liberalization and democratization happening simultaneously. In 1985, the "Latin American Union" surpasses the USA in GDP(though that has more to do with the massive crisis that happens in the US at the same time)

 

[MAlexMatt]

Can you explain what you mean when you say that decentralized economies have an easier time gathering information?

The point here is that decentralized economies don't need to gather information. The difference is between many, diffuse decision makers and one or a few, centralized decision maker(s). In the former situation, diffuse, localized knowledge can be applied quickly and efficiently, while in the latter it must either be gathered (at great cost) or done without (at great opportunity cost).

If I am interpreting your statement about information correctly, and please tell me if I am not, I see it as a bit of a red herring due to the fact that the decentralized economy may have more access to information but a centralized economy may easily make better use of a given amount of information than a decentralized economy can. Also note that a "Market economy" is not the opposite of a "centralized economy": A planned economy is the opposite of a market economy, while a market economy may be centralized (as in state capitalism) and a decentralized economy may be planned.

Well, do note, there is economic planning in every kind of economy. Without economic planning we all starve to death. It's just a question of whether planning is done by a diffuse multitude or a central few.

The source of the information/knowledge critique (Hayel's The Use of Knowledge in Society) actually begins with this point.

 

[Oba]

The problem I see with Hayel's argument concerning how knowledge is dispersed in society is this: Not everyone has an equal amount of knowledge in any complex society nor the desire to do good nor equal capacity to process and utilize knowledge in any society, so markets are only as efficient as the average person in the society, while planned economies can be better, worse or both better and worse but in different ways than markets. And of course, markets have ethical issues with rewarding greed and discouraging people from being content.

 

[MAlexMatt]

The problem I see with Hayel's argument concerning how knowledge is dispersed in society is this: Not everyone has an equal amount of knowledge in any complex society nor the desire to do good nor equal capacity to process and utilize knowledge in any society, so markets are only as efficient as the average person in the society, while planned economies can be better, worse or both better and worse but in different ways than markets. And of course, markets have ethical issues with rewarding greed and discouraging people from being content.

Then you get into the problem of how you make sure the central planners are going to be the 'best'.

But markets are a 'package deal', because besides the ability to take advantage of local information, they also naturally create a set of incentives that draw capital to those best able to create value with it. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are soon parted". Similarly, they contain the incentives that cause people to learn to be better at utilizing the knowledge that they have and, just as important, they provide the opportunity to learn.