By Akracia – Fenikso Nigra
In contemporary Brazil, central economic decisions are usually presented as inevitable technical measures. Fiscal adjustments, interest rate increases, or structural reforms appear in official discourse as rational responses to “market demands” or supposedly incontestable numbers. This way of presenting the economy hides an essential point: no economic decision is neutral. Every choice in this field defines priorities, distributes power, and directly affects people’s lives.
The separation between economy and politics is neither natural nor universal. It is a historical construction that gained strength throughout the twentieth century, especially to remove fundamental decisions from public debate. In many community societies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, decisions about production, distribution, and use of resources have always been linked to social organization. There was no “technical” field separate from collective life. Planting, storing, exchanging, and caring were economic and political actions at the same time.
In Brazil, this artificial separation appears clearly in the Central Bank’s actions. Interest rate setting directly influences employment levels, access to housing, and cost of living. When these decisions are presented only as inflation control, the fact that they favor certain interests is concealed—such as the return on financial investments—while making productive investment and popular consumption more difficult. Each percentage point represents concrete choices about who will be protected and who will bear the costs.
The discourse of “fiscal responsibility” follows the same logic. Governments claim there are no resources to expand investments in health, education, or infrastructure, while allocating enormous sums to paying interest on public debt. This priority is not a neutral technical requirement but a political decision. Other alternatives could exist, such as revising tax exemptions, taxing large fortunes, or auditing debts contracted in authoritarian contexts. Technical language often serves to prevent these options from being discussed.
Recent reforms in Brazil also illustrate this dynamic. Labor reform was presented as necessary modernization to generate jobs, but resulted in the weakening of collective bargaining and the expansion of precarious work. Pension reform, based on actuarial calculations, ignored debates about tax justice and income distribution. In both cases, political decisions were masked as inevitable adjustments.
Various anarchist strands, despite their differences, share a common understanding: economy and politics are inseparable. The way work is organized, how resources are distributed, and how decisions are made defines power relations. Separating these fields serves to concentrate decisions in the hands of specialists distant from practical consequences.
Historical experiences show alternative paths. Quilombola communities in Brazil have maintained, for centuries, forms of collective management based on assemblies and common use of land. In various regions of Latin America, indigenous peoples organize production respecting community decisions and social balance. These examples are not ready-made models but demonstrate that other forms of organizing material life are possible.
Recognizing that there is no neutral economy is a fundamental step for practical action. It means questioning priorities, demanding direct participation in decisions, and building, in daily life, forms of organization based on autonomy and cooperation. Unmasking technical neutrality is recovering the collective capacity to decide about one’s own destiny.
In struggle, we are dignified and free people!
