The first relevant consideration relating to Vargas's Anti-Communist perspective refers to the philosophical origins of Communism, which he says are rooted in the materialistic concept of life and which embodied the most dangerous enemy of Christian civilization.
This reading condemns Communism due to the fact that in Brazil, in the light of the spiritual formation of the people, they can only conceive of it as the absolute annihilation of all the achievements of Western culture under the rule of the lower appetites and passions of mankind, a negligible kind of return to primitivism. This study emphasises the fact that this criticism is based mainly on the conviction of a partial view of the world, a fundamentally materialist conception.
It is also important to stress the need for this discourse to establish a balance between material and spiritual conceptions of the world, the latter being designed on the basis of a close relationship to Christian doctrine.
It follows therefore that Vargas's Anti-Communist perspective was initially part of a critique of materialism, in the same way that the genesis of the Anti-Liberal discourse relied especially on combating practices founded in national communism.
These discursive prohibitions in which he was embedded are very important, being primarily responsible for the highly political character on which his discursive logic was based. This being the case, Vargas was able to use his vision on a particular issue, and then address the specific needs of a particular context presented or demanded, so directing his speech in regard to what should be articulated at any given point.
An incontrovertible example of this is its clear defence of the new constitution of 1934, with the attempt of a readjustment of the electoral process aimed exclusively at the reorganization of this still-liberal mould. When implementing the new state, this discourse was aimed at presenting a clear condemnation of the 1934 constitution, asserting that it was obsolete and had failed due to its liberal foundations. As for the election issue, that was also criticized at the time and replaced by the New State Model.
It follows that a considerable portion of Vargas` political views, expressed in his speech, and were made due to the immediate needs and objectives he was faced with at that time. And it is through this historical process that the construction of his speech is understood including beliefs or political-ideological positions, each of which functioned towards legitimising his hold on power.
Since the early years of his government in 1930 and 1931, in the era of the Provisional Government, authoritarianism and anti-liberalism were already present in his discourse, but not necessarily explicit or elaborate. It is important to consider the explicit form as reaffirmed the need for a strong state as the only means to meet and resolve the problems and national demands. Already in the second stage, this issue was implicitly brought about by strong criticism of liberalism, in both democratic and economic aspects. Corroborating this line of interpretation, Aspasia Camargo points out that there can be no doubt that from the beginning, the orientation of Vargas was illiberal and averse to participation and any legal and political model that would privilege the Congress and the parties.
It follows therefore that if there was continuity between the two events, that is the revolution of 1930 and the 1937 coup, there were also breaks. Within the context of this discourse, it is evident from the fundamentals of the Revolution of 1930, that there was a discernible presence of a centralizing vision in Vargas's thinking.
What is of particular relevance to this study is that it was only by opposing the various related forces which were enabling the continued presence of liberal elements (such as the pressure of the oligarchy Sao Paulo in 1932, the international crisis and domestic economic and political instability), that it was possible to create the conditions necessary for a break with liberal reconciliations, manifesting especially in the repression of communism and fundamentalists in 1937 and culminating in the establishment of the Estado Novo.
Given the objective conditions of the daily, national and international political climate, one can conclude that several assumptions regarding authoritarian thought were already present in the political, imaginary Brazilian culture since the 1930s. A clear example of this is the recurring characterization of an eventful crisis, in which the state should take a leading role and act as legitimate guide and protector, responsible for resolving or overcoming the situation.
Thus, it is against the backdrop of political tensions that openings were created for the resurgent authoritarian Vargas, either internally against the weakening of some key players, such as the Sao Paulo coffee oligarchy and the increasing social pressures arising from the clash between the extremism of the right and the left, or on the international stage, the anti-liberal hegemony of the discourse.
For this reason, as pointed out by Lippi Lucy, the whole of Vargas's political manoeuvring, logically responded to a whole historical process of construction and rearrangement of the political game, culminating with the implementation of a new state and, within the discursive logic created by him, this does not present itself differently.
It is important however to be clear that one cannot believe that by 1930 Vargas already had in mind the whole concept or design of the New State regime and the way in which it would be implemented. According to Edgard Carone, the New State Policy was to have been structured on the basis of time and circumstances and not following a pre-established plan. It is incorrect to think that the circumstances relating to the coup were engineered to organize the state dictatorship. This was done according to the new balance and imbalance in the groups that supported the coup.
For these reasons there is a need to focus on the temporality that permeates the building process of this discourse, while understanding the inflections and nuances of the era of the situation, which in turn directly reflect the discursive construction of coherence in their attempts to distinguish between the doctrine and the facts.
Responding then to the objective conditions of national and international policy, its position had a clear upsurge in favour of a solution based on or influenced by authoritarian and liberal recurring thought of the period. Vargas initially seemed to be more inclined to reform the state and society from within the liberal camp, considering that during his government its inherent authoritarianism would be intensified.
This backdrop shows the development of a Vargas regime marked by a strong state, and centralizing its illiberal nature in its first two years of government. It is for this reason that after the effective formalization of the new government started in 1937, its discursive logic stated that "now when you come to appear before me and tell me fulfil my duty, I come to you to declare that the Revolution is over." This creates a sense of continuity, whereby this position can be understood as an extension of discourse already previously articulated by Vargas, or one that took place even during the caretaker government.
There is a realization of the benefit to discursive tactics of relating his old speeches, ruled by an authoritarian thinking in its infancy, to support their stated position in this authoritative, characterizing the process of intensification of its authoritarianism. Within this perspective, this discourse points to the fact that:
The constitutional arrangements of 1934, poured in the mould of classical liberalism and a representative system, evinced lamentable failures under this and other aspects. The constitution was evidently backdated to the spirit of time. It was to a reality that no longer existed based on principles whose validity would not stand the shock of the global crisis.
During the early 1930s, the discourse initiated by Vargas had as its main objective the building of a discursive logic of disruption of the regime before 1930 and legitimizing the revolution. Subsequent to the year 1935 - and especially during 1937 - this logical discourse was used to refer to actions or achievements of the Provisional Government and Constitutional Law as an unfinished process, reducing the transforming power of the Revolution and the 1934 Constitution, thereby legitimizing the resurgence and authoritarian the grip of its power.
In this vein, Vargas pointed to the fact that the political body, aimed at readjusting the economic needs of the country and ensuring the measures identified, offered no alternative other than what was taken, namely, that of setting up a strong regime of peace, justice and work. Additionally, he pointed out that the economic conception of the New State was not a matter of doctrine or point of view: it is an imposition of contemporary reality.
In short, Vargas`s speech had an illiberal and authoritarian character in 1930 as a result of the influence of political, ideological, national and international factors. Worthy of note is that, during his administration, there was a clear resurgence of authoritarianism and anti-liberalism (such as the incorporation of anti-communism), introduced in the context of the political-ideological legitimizing of authoritarianism. That is, the idea or thought introduced was a product of the authoritarian period. Even keeping within the context of the period in question, one can observe that many authoritarian governments, especially those with a fascist or fascist leaning clearly corroborated Vargas`s attitude towards the authoritarian solution; because it was ahead of the government of Rio Grande do Sul. It manifested, in theory and action, a great admiration for the institutions of Nazi-Germany, which was confirmed by its statements in the early days of the Provisional Government.
Finally, the last observation to be considered with regard to the insertion of this discourse in the relevant Historiographical debates, is the contemplation of anti-communism , pointing to the fact that Vargas`s speech does not come close to the interpretations contained in the thesis of Rodrigo Motta, wherein the Communist Conspiracy of 1935 is placed as a landmark resurgence of anti-communism .
One notes that this line of interpretation is inconsistent with the content Vargas' discourse, including this one, which at first directs all of its logic and discursive construction towards criticising anti-liberalism. Only in 1935 does the focus shift back to anti-communism, with anti-liberalism being pushed to the background. It is significant that in the period before 1935, there was no reference to communism in his speeches. On account of this fact one cannot point to a resurgence, but rather to the appearance or manifestation of the discourse from this previous period. Finally, it should be borne in mind that after the introduction of the New State regime, such anti-liberalism continued to be relegated to the background.
