The Getulio Vargas Era 1930-1945

The so-called Vargas Era began with the arrival of Getulio Vargas to power in the Provisional Government, following the Revolution of 1930. This government lasted until 1937 when a coup took place and Vargas initiated the period well known as the Estado Novo (1937-1945). The Vargas Era was constituted by the crisis of the agrarian dependent export trade and the beginning of the structuring of national development based on industrialization. With the increase in urbanization, the decline in agricultural production and the intensification of the industrialization process came an increase in the social demand for education. At the same time the emergence of the urban industrial model points to a new and growing need for training the work force in order to meet the needs of the emerging economic model: The crisis highlighted therefore, the need to adapt the state apparatus to meet the changing needs of politics and economics, replacing urgently the whole structure of political power which had contributed to the economic crisis and was indeed prolonging it.

Thus, the period of the history of Brazil which has become known as the Vargas Era (1930-1945) is precisely the context in which these discussions were particularly relevant, put into practice through ideology or forms of government implemented during the Estado Novo (New State), which represented the victory of authoritarian ideas and the defeat of the liberals. Lucia Lippi Oliveira argues that, 'already in the immediate time after the Revolution of the 1930s, the authoritarian tendencies were present in the Vargas philosophy, resulting in its anti-liberalism and anti-communism'.

1.1 - THE POLITICAL CRISIS OF THE INTERWAR PERIOD In order to characterize the political conjecture during the interwar period consideration must be given to the initial crisis of the liberal world as a whole. At this point, there was evidence of a hegemonic critical stance condemning the prevailing situation in Europe during the period 1918/19, when almost all of the values, assumptions and practices typical of liberal institutions as had existed and functioned until 1914, had become devoid of all meaning and effectiveness. The fundamental criticism of the scheme would lie in its "apparent inability to solve problems and obstacles which the new political and social dynamics encountered." This point is clearly borne out by the occurrence of events such as the First World War and the financial crisis of 1929. For a considerable part of the political ideological world of this period, it was no longer possible to sustain the old belief in the capacity of the liberal institutions (with their declining political influence) to give adequate satisfaction to the aspirations and demands of the more numerous and more exploited social segments. Indeed, in this sense, both the Communist Left and the Fascist Right pointed to the fact that that this was no longer possible and thereby suddenly gaining an irresistible impetus, putting them at the head of the political stage. It is for this reason that Eric Hobsbawm points to the fact that the survivors of the nineteenth century were perhaps more shocked by the collapse of values and institutions of liberal civilization than by any other phenomenon. This perspective allows us to see that these ideas and / or political beliefs were not only present in the world of philosophers, theorists, politicians and intellectuals, but also in the world of the common man; it illustrates how these anti-liberal ideas were at the same time responding and also feeding the political culture of this war period, becoming a collective representation. Such criticisms, fighting liberal ideals, spread rapidly throughout Germany in the face of this evident crisis, thus gaining new connotations in the face of mass political formations, whether left or right, and also through the "elite strategic formation." They sought to redirect and / or replace the control of projects and political action through the State. This was done in light of the new proposals guided by the negation of the liberal model. This union between social movements and state action found its most significant expression among the most popular fronts, especially in Nazi-Fascism. It is important to note that whilst there was criticism of liberalism within communist speeches, the principal castigators were the fascists. For this reason, it is the 23 years between the so-called "March on Rome" of Mussolini and the pinnacle of success of the Axis in World War II that saw the accelerated withdrawal and increasingly catastrophic policies of liberal institutions. The termination of helplessness as well as the liberal, which had already started to occur within the political culture of the period, reaffirmed transformation into a collective representation, more than a form of criticism and / or conviction, to a type of absolute knowledge and / or common place in the hegemonic political thought of the period. For most governments, movements, parties and intellectuals, this inability was not just liberal thought understood as something to be proven, but an obvious fact, as a "truth" and undisputed fact that was already given. In this sense: The war itself [the first], if it did not determine, at least accelerated the process of enlarging the sphere of state economic intervention. From there, the crisis itself would intensify this trend, in the shadow of ideologies favourable to the expansion of the field state, as opposed to the old liberal tradition of detachment and neutrality (more ideological than real) of the state in economic processes.

On this issue, Eric Hobsbawm points out that in the ideological-political context prevalent in Europe, for Brazil, together with other countries on the side of the Atlantic, fascism without doubt seemed to be the success story of the decade. If there was a model to be imitated in the world, this model could certainly be found in Berlin and Rome, as London and Paris did not offer much political inspiration and Washington was out of action. Analyzing the Brazilian experience, it can be viewed that these expansive ideas were assimilated in Brazil in a more finished form in 1930, when the emerging nationalism of the 1920s culminated in a more detailed analysis of the global crisis, its repercussions, internal referrals and its potential. One can argue that this is the reason for the political groupings in the 1930s entering the political arena, with a recurrence of commonplace ideologies, in spite of the emergence of mutual differences as well. Furthermore, that there was a rejection of liberal democracy, competitive capitalism and the multiparty system, among other liberal doctrines, as such ideologies were opposed to the apparent recovery of nationalism, interventionism and the hegemony of the state over society. These were concepts that were present in almost all projects. Therefore, these: New forces on the rise - Getulistas, lieutenants, fundamentalists, and allies- advocated a strong state with tutelage responsibilities on society, on social class and on the economic system. Indeed, the political currents that arise in the thirties occupy different positions within the same ideological universe characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism and interventionism.

During this time of crisis, state interventionism, the foundation of authoritarian thinking, was defended even by the "new" liberals, such as J. M. Keynes and other intellectuals and politicians. There was an evident acceptance of tendencies and / or centralized thought in the whole political culture, which influenced even the different factions of Brazilian politics. It is through this bias that we can understand the reasons that make the most distinct political parties enter into discussions with one another, with their own ideas circulating in this world of political-ideological and / or political culture.

1.2 - THE GETULIO VARGAS SPEECH This study will now focus the Getulio Vargas Speech itself. This will then be followed by a discussion of the issue of anti communism and anti liberalism, aiming to standardize them by understanding their construction and internal logic. Vargas took on the Brazilian State in 1930, engendered by a political force, the so-called Revolution of 30, of which he was the main leader. From that date until the year 1934, he ruled as head of the Provisional Government, during which period he formally became President following the approval of a new constitution. This was accomplished largely due to internal pressures that are evident through the Constitutionalist Revolution of 1932 in Sao Paulo. This period became known as the Constitutional Government. Its mandate was to end in 1938, but was extended until 1945 due to the coup of 1937, which established the Estado Novo. It was at this point that Vargas clearly initiated a strong dictatorial, Corporatist State. The perception of these different times in the Vargas government elucidates a means of monitoring the construction, transformation and discursive usages developed by him over the fifteen years as head of state. This period is extremely important, especially in the context of this study, as the different moments of his government are directly related to the construction of the discourses under discussion here that is the anti-liberal and anti-Communist themes. We see therefore that in the course of the analysis undertaken here, the speech of Vargas was constructed and rearticulated throughout this period, in which some ideas were abandoned and others were fully incorporated. Finally, the last addendum to be addressed prior to a detailed examination of the discourse analysis itself will direct this study necessarily refers to the speech of Getulio Vargas. The first thing worthy of note within this discourse concerns the interpretation of national problems, which are listed in the political thought of the 1920s and 1930s. Vargas`s speech is no exception to this pattern. Firstly, various texts are alluded to in order to highlight role of intellectuals in the assessment of these problems, because it emphasizes the need for participation on the side of the rulers. Looking at the recent past, Vargas talks of a "backwater at the end of the nineteenth century and forgotten past that caused the advent of the Republic. Politicians and administrators were on one side and the intellectuals, occupying the opposite banks of the stream social life." We realize that in the case of this discourse, there is an allegation of separation between intellectuals and rulers. This fact appears as a constant within the Brazilian administration of the Republican period preceding the Revolution of 1930. Therefore, Vargas emphasizes the role of intellectuals in the search for solutions to national problems. Referring to the way in which these problems should be examined, Vargas says that "the time of renewal and reconstruction across the country must be seen within the Brazilian reality, referring to our traditions and experience of previous errors, considered as lessons for the future." Therefore, this speech points to the fact that it is necessary to examine Brazil within the context of its own realities, in case the proposals or solutions to these problems escape the lure of pure doctrinaire, the influences or the ideals of the new loan and dangerous. Thus, national problems require accurate examination, with a need to ensure that potential solutions are considered and put into effect with diligence. However, revitalising this position, he also points out that "such an attitude does not imply we stay inert, comfortably apathetic and indifferent to the achievements of contemporary political thought, dreaming, mental laziness, the automatic return to the past." A study of such discourse exposes the need to address the problems facing the national Brazilian reality; however, this discourse does not deny the possible contribution of ideas from outside the country, but rather emphasizes that one should take special care towards such issues.