by Vânia Motta, Maria Carolina Andrade



The article discusses the tensions waged between different fractions of capital in these three hundred days of Bolsonaro government over the definition of an educational agenda for basic education. More precisely, we are interested in the unfriendly relationship that has been established between the educational business community and the current team of the strictly state governing bodies of Brazilian education.

In previous works we analyzed the direction attributed to basic school education, from the consolidation of the neoliberal historical bloc in Brazil. We affirm that, despite the specificities of the distinct governmental educational policies implemented since the 1990’s, a process of empresariamento of education of a new type was underway in Brazil, and that its various dimensions could be observed in the set of public policies of the last thirty years, though at some point or another it became more evident.

We demonstrate that this process has as its important milestone the creation of the Movimento Todos pela Educação (TPE) – All for Education Movement – in 2006 and the performance of its agents in the definition of public education policies. Moreover, despite changes in the correlation of forces fought mainly within the strict state following the coup that deposed the PT (workers party) president, the leverage of so-called educational reforms had been substantiating the empresariamento of a new type rather than eliminating it. Finally, we signal that the consolidation of the empresariamento was consistent with the economic and social framework that had been designed since the 2015 recession.1

With the rise of the far right and the ultra-conservative-ultraliberal coalition, and based on a series of episodes further addressed, we question the direction of this empresariamento in the Bolsonaro government. Are we about to see a divorce between the strict state education agendas and business community? Are there, in fact, distinct fractions vying for space on the educational agenda? If so, are there any concrete differences between their proposals?

In order not to answer these questions for now, but only to indicate elements for an initial approximation, we have divided this text into three sections. Firstly, we briefly resume the concept of empresariamento of education of a new type and its dimensions. In the second, we mention some previous notes on the scenario in which it is consolidated and deepened. In the third part, we present a systematization of events that concern the tensions that occurred between the education business community and the group in power, as conveyed in the media and social networks. We close with some considerations to feed future analysis.


With this concept we seek to express the consolidation process of the business community2 hegemony in the Brazilian public education in the last thirty years, highlighting its constitutive aspects. Based on Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, Gramsci’s conceptions of expanded State, apparatus devoid of hegemony and organic intellectual, and the concept of dependent capitalism by authors such as Florestan Fernandes, we address historical, structural and universal aspects of this process, matching them to the particularities of the Brazilian social formation and the neoliberal historical bloc.

In an effort to be theoretically coherent with the centrality of the structure-superstructure dialectic in our framework, we define three central dimensions of this process, namely the commodification of education, the marketization of education, and the subsumption of education to the business community. We approach them individually and then their reciprocal relationships, demonstrating how they feed back at the present period. Thus, we understand the educational sphere within the structure-superstructure dialectic and as an important link of this unity.

Regarding the process of commodification of education, we affirm that the historical and progressive subsumption of school education (as a process) to the form and logic of the commodity, including its fetishized and potentially reifying character of human relations, it was in the tendencies of the capital to subdue all forms of human existence to the value valuing process and consolidating the commercial relationship as a form of social exchange between men.

We demonstrate that, despite the historical-biased character of this process, the exacerbated suppression of the immediate use value to the worker, combined with the potentiation of this value in the capitalist perspective, was a particular characteristic of school education within the neoliberal historical bloc, as well as directly associated with changes in the labour world.3 Moreover, that the deepening of commodification could not be apprehended if apart from the elements linked to the strengthening of the working class’s4 submission mechanisms, see the fact that the expropriation of knowledge, a characteristic of this process, also contributes to the suppression of critical thinking construction.

The second dimension we define is directly connected to the first, and was called the marketization of education. With this, we also approach the historical-biased process by which both school education, as a process, and the pedagogical tools (such as books and handouts) have been transformed into commodities themselves within the trend movement of accelerating the formation of new markets. In this context we consider again that, although the process of school education has historically been encompassed by mercantile logic, the transformation of school education into a large-scale market niche has been made a particular feature of the neoliberal historical bloc, with the consolidation of rentier hegemony. Moreover, that this could be understood in the locus of reciprocity between the countertrend measures implemented in response to the organic crisis of capital, which was consolidated in Brazil in the 1980’s, and the successive legislations that regulated the conception of a “non-state public” in the following decade, when the entrepreneurial and mercantile idea of school education is transformed, for the first time in history, into one-dimensional state policy.

Linked to these two dimensions we indicate the subsumption of education to the business community. It is about the business hegemony, most importantly in the context of basic public education, through its mercantile-philanthropic social organizations, that is, its “private hegemony apparatus”, as Gramsci defines it.

It should be emphasized that if, on the one hand, the progression of commodification and marketization contributed to the complete subsumption of education to the business community under historically determined conditions, in the other hand this subsumption itself provided a profound deepening of commodification and marketization. And that we do not disregard the historic dispute of the business community for a hegemonic pedagogical political project5 nor its capability for political articulation in favor of its interests.6 We understand, however, that the business community activity is politically strengthened with the TPE, since it brings together allies linked to the government and large companies and banks to succeed in the direction of public education policies, and also mediate the implementation of the guidelines of International Organizations.

It is also worth noting that this group, while performing these functions, has never waived the mechanisms of conquest, organization and reinforcement of workers’ active and passive consensus around their conceptions of education and the world, resorting to all kinds of duress and coercion, direct and indirect, subtle or violent, on those who did not consent to their measures either actively or passively.7 And, in fact, the specificities of education erected under the legality of capitalism in the dependent economy are ratified, as it revitalizes and deepens structural educational duality, resistance to investment in public education, cultural backwardness, denial of inventive imagination, the massification of the peripheral-dependent type, the precarious structural conditions, the permanent heteronomy condition and others.8

In this course, we observed that, in spite of different political-partisan projects of the governments of these twenty years, this organized business community in the TPE had a strong action in the strict State scope, especially in the Ministry of Education (MEC) and in other deliberative and consultative spaces, and in the school space itself, via public-private partnerships in education networks. We conclude, then, that in the neoliberal historical bloc this hegemony apparatus built a solid entrenchment of the bourgeois State, which brought countless difficulties to the organization of the workers.


Given the above statement and the purpose of reflecting the dynamics of intra-bourgeois disputes in the Bolsonist government, we consider it important to emphasize some constitutive aspects of the neoliberal historical bloc.

Using Gramsci9 and Coutinho10, we seize neoliberalism as a counter-reform, that is, although it includes renewal, restoration is the predominant moment and mostly mystified by the “aura of sympathy” of the word reform. Precisely in this sense we understand that the empresariamento of education of a new type is born within the renewal of the arbitrary acts of the military-business dictatorship in the form of market dictatorship, which restores the barbaric conditions necessary for capitalist accumulation in the locus of the dependent economy.

In these terms, we also consider that in this context of counter-reform, the exercise of bourgeois hegemony is mainly based on passive consensus, which in turn ratifies the hegemony of small politics as an aspect of big politics. Given this scenario, the conditions for an ethical-political confrontation are fading, in a way that resistance prevails at the economic-state or economic-corporate levels aiming to trying to maintain universal or specific rights of professional categories and/or social groups. It is worth noting that, as far as the bowels of the ruling class are concerned, despite disputes between their different fractions for prestige, power and immediate advantages, their movement on the political scene still has as a background the intention of big politics, that is, the dominance of the underlings and the preservation of the capitalist state.

None of these understandings denies the relief the workers gained in the PT government, nor could there have been a shift from the base of hegemonic activity to the active consensus of the masses. Or that they have believed in a project of national sovereignty, with a less violent capitalism and, why not, with a trajectory of conquests within the order with a view to overcoming them. However, they were concomitant with the maintenance of resistance practices to public investment in the public sphere, capitalization of the public fund, redemption to the international capital, among others. It could avail the relief to, on the one hand, disarm class enemies, mystify the restorations of the dependent economy foundations, and penetrate into common sense the values that legitimize capitalist accumulation; on the other hand, ideologically operate the small politics to continue excluding the big politics from state life, above all by convincing the workers that the capital perversity could be contained within the order through “reforms”.11

These understandings are indispensable to comprehend the development of the education subsumption to the business community, as well as that the consolidation of its hegemony in this period it is not contingent. Based on these, it is possible to understand the movement of the business community towards: i) mediating and/or hindering the active consensus mainly of education professionals; ii) ensure the passive consensus of the masses around the narrative that the state is unable and inefficient to operate the democratization of quality education; iii) amalgamate the business logic of goals and results at low cost, even through broad control and coercive instruments. Even in the face of the increasing allocation of public resources to private sectors, the structural and teaching work precariousness, the sharp structural educational duality and the restricted access to historically accumulated knowledge by sweeping the curricula disciplines not directly useful to the market.

Not coincidentally, even in the face of these and other deleterious effects arising from and deepening the commodification and marketization of education in the neoliberal historical bloc, the working class was unable to present a robust counter-hegemonic education project. In that sense, understanding the progressive demobilization of workers requires considering not only the reliefs afforded by the economic base, but also the power of transformism and conformist measures in the PT government within the small politics.

The coup of 2016, whose crux was the celerity of fiscal adjustment, brought to power the conservative liberal right that, despite its relative success in conducting the attack on workers and maintaining the monopolist capital profits (especially of its financial fraction), remained in a constant tightrope with its leadership corruption scandals. In the meantime, of the onset of the organic crisis, the direction of empresariamento of new-type came to be questioned. However, despite certain mishaps, the empresariamento had been going full steam ahead; not only because the reforms undertaken by the business community a few years ago were approved, but because the deepening of this process was needed for the structural, super structural and ideological cementation of the devastations called for by the capital – a task carried out par excellence by the business community and always with the support of international organizations.

However, the inability of the coup-plotting right wing to gain stability and legitimacy to reelect itself, the masses’ disbelief about representative politics and the dissatisfaction with the intensification of the general precariousness of human existence (increase in crime, unemployment, misery, violence, brutalization and others), contributed greatly to the correlation of forces shifting towards the far right. As Iasi12 points out, they have succeeded in “sticking their hatred and resentment to the workers’ hatred and thus gaining mass base for their reactionary project”.

Certainly, all the aspects mentioned above confirm the inexistence of any determined relationship between crisis, pauperism and class awareness, of any automaticity in the formation of the objective and subjective conditions of the revolution listed by Lenin and the power of transformism and hegemony based on passive consensus. In this sense, although Bolsonaro’s election does represent the deepening of more orthodox neoliberalism and the expanded renewal of Brazilian dependence,13 some of the far-right peculiarities seem to us to be of utmost importance in understanding the vicissitudes of the Bolsonaro government’s educational policy.

Before we get into the tensions themselves, it is worth remembering some aspects whose systematization can be found in Iasi (2019a; 2019b): i) the far right is an instrument of the big capital, so that between them and the right there is no difference in ethical-political terms; ii) if in some way working-class submission is a historical priority of the democratic-liberal-republican right, the direction of the far right is to intensify the contradictions; iii) the modus operandi of ideology under hegemony from the far right is greatly inclined to irrationality and lies, which is strongly related not only to the unmasking and dismantling of neoliberal rationalism, but also to postmodernism; iv) although Bolsonaro was the choice of the ruling classes (no matter if not the first or the favorite, nor did it weigh the “partnership” with Paulo Guedes), its ineffectiveness and bizarreness has created a growing discomfort for the ruling classes because it is reaching precisely what unites them, that is, the progress of counter-reform measures; (v) Finally, that this burlesque illustrated character above all by Bolsonaro’s rudeness is the necessary form of conservation of the bourgeois state, even though more or less serious tensions arise between sectors of the ruling class which, after all, are still lacking in leadership.


The Temer government closes its government in 2018 with the approval of the following reforms in basic education: New High School (NEM) (Law 13.415/2017), National Common Curricular Base (BNCC) for early childhood education and elementary education in 2017 and for high school in the very end of 2018, new National Curriculum Guidelines for high school (DCN-EM) (which also included distance learning at this stage of teaching) and others. Legislations governing or initiating the implementation of the NEM and BNCC were also approved: Ordinances No. 649/2018 which instituted the New High School Support Program and established guidelines and criteria for the participation of States; Ordinance No. 1.023/2018, that established the parameters for selection and evaluation of the Full-time High School Promotion Program; Ordinance No. 331/2018, which established the guidelines of the BNCC (PRO-BNCC) Implementation Support Program and the Ordinance No. 1.432/2018 (published only in 2019), which established the references for the elaboration of training itineraries in line with the new DCN-EM.

We all knew that the approval of these reforms, widely supported and/or conducted by the business community, would have different meanings depending on the composition of the educational context of the Bolsonaro government. In this sense, it is worth mentioning that although the President had a positive nod to the business community still at the time of the campaign, receiving the businesswoman Viviane Senna and being receptive to her ideas, the first doubts about the integration of the educational business community in the Bolsonaro government emerged as part of its indication to the MEC. By the end of 2018, rumors that the nomination for the position would be Mozart Neves Ramos (current Director of Articulation and Innovation at the Ayrton Senna Institute, a member of the CNE, and undoubtedly the business community favorite choice) generated explicit opposition from the evangelical contingent. Shortly thereafter Bolsonaro tried to stifle the rumors, denying the alleged indication, to which Mozart responded by stating to the press that he was invited and it is unhappy with the President’s attitude.

On January 2nd, 2019, in his inauguration speech, then-Minister of Education Vélez stated that the paths to be followed would be very close to the Partyless School and the fight against what he calls gender ideology and leftist indoctrination; that more autonomy would be given to states and municipalities, including the creation of the “education voucher”, so that families enroll their children in the private school of their choice and that he would work against illiteracy, by expanding kindergartens and preschool, by home education, the management and functioning of schools, the enrollment and completion of students at the right age and the dissemination of an agenda for promoting ethics and citizenship in the classroom.14 The next day, the TPE published on its website an article calling on Brazilians to follow the changes in high school, which should reach the classrooms by 2022 at the latest. In this, he stated that, “for this to happen, the MEC must provide technical and financial support in the implementation of the changes and the education networks will be free to choose different formats that meet the local reality and the demands of young people and communities”.15

Still in January, the then Minister of Education Ricardo Vélez welcomed TPE representatives and took note of the document “Education Now!16, prepared by them intended, as always, to set goals and present ways to face the (historical) problems of Brazilian education. The following month, in a message sent to Congress, Bolsonaro stated that MEC’s focus on basic education would be the expansion of technical education, the militarization of schools, the fight against (supposed) indoctrination and early “sexualization” as well as that the BNCC, approved after five years of intense work by the Common National Base Movement business organization, would be reviewed by the new government.

By March the MEC had begun to receive robust criticism, including from the business community. At the time, the president of the National Council of Secretaries of Education (Consed) said in an interview that MEC had no command or policy for education, and they were disappointed by the lack of willingness to dialogue and the then minister’s extremism.

In early April Ricardo Vélez was fired by Bolsonaro and the position was taken over by Abraham Weintraub17. According to Exame magazine (2019, s./p.), Weintraub, Bolsonaro and Onyx Lorenzoni have been close since 2017, and that he is a fan of Olavo de Carvalho’s ideas. The magazine’s own online edition released a video in which the minister, discussing Bolsonaro’s government plan with current federal deputy Luis Philippe Bragança (PSL-SP), states: “The left enters. Shortly after it comes in, you begin to have the drug deeply penetrating into society. So this is important to see the correlation. Where the left goes, the drug goes after.”18

Shortly after the appointment, TPE executive manager Priscila Cruz says Weintraub is extremely similar to Ricardo Vélez, especially with regard to his strong ideological profile and lack of educational experience. With this, the MEC would remain inert and failing to prioritize urgent educational issues. However, she considered that Weintraub’s indication could be advantageous in terms of his capacity for political articulation, given his proximity to the Minister of the Civil House Onyx Lorenzoni.

In the midst of these clashes, it seemed that the trench of corporate hegemony private appliances in education would collapse. Its intellectuals, perplexed by the rejection of being part of this ruling group, sought from its allies, Consed and the National Union of Municipal Education Leaders (Undime) support for political strength. And a few days after Weintraub’s appointment, the Mixed Parliamentary Front of Education was launched in Congress to bring parliamentarians around the priorities of basic education. The Front is comprised of Consed, Undime and corporate social organizations, and is based on the referred “Education Now!” and “Learning Agenda19” – prepared by Consed and Undime – to forward education public policies.

The following week, Priscila Cruz, Claudia Costin and Tábata Amaral discussed the directions of education at the event “Veja Exame – 100 days of government”. In the debate, they stated that the country’s educational problems have already been diagnosed by “experts” (business community leaders) and that the way to resolution is already known, but, unfortunately, political will is concentrated on controversial issues that in no way influence the educational indexes. Both obviously made clear mention of the strong ideological bias of the Bolsonaro government.

Demonstrating the dynamic character of force correlations and the power of Brazilian business community, in the same month Minister Weintraub sought Viviane Senna and Ricardo Paes, chief economist of the Ayrton Senna Institute, for a technical cooperation agreement. He then held a meeting with members of Consed, Undime, TPE, Natura Institute and others, when the minister met the documents “Learning Agenda” and “Education Now”.

In June, however, the fragility of this integration of MEC with the business community, Consed and Undime became clear. On the 11th, it was announced that the municipal and state secretaries of education had decided to create a common agenda with the business community, as MEC had no longer signaled the continuity of the programs.

In July, the Ministry, apparently in a new attempt, launched the “National Letter of Commitment for Basic Education”20 in partnership with Consed and Undime, addressing issues of great interest to the business community. A few days after the launch, the government announced cuts in the transfer of funds to basic education, reaching programs aimed at full-time education in elementary and secondary education, kindergartens, literacy and technical education.

A few weeks after the letter’s release, Folha de São Paulo published a report entitled “Far from national polarization, states articulate educational actions among themselves”, in which representatives of the business community again criticized the prioritization of “ideological war” and stated that the vacuum left by the MEC, due to the delay in defining policies, was filled by congress and states, which gave up waiting for the MEC to take the lead in educational policy. In the same article, the role of corporate social organizations in the education of states and municipalities and in the dissemination of “good practices” and “educational policies” was highlighted, with emphasis on the Ayrton Senna Institute and the Unibanco Itaú Social Institute.

More recently, the conflict of the National Program of the Civic-Military Schools has surfaced. At the launching ceremony, he said the model should be imposed, especially for kids who “don’t know in the PISA test a simple rule of three, interpreting text, doesn’t answer basic science questions.” On the same day, business officials criticized the program and stated that there is no evidence that the presence of military personnel in the school leads to increased results, and that the choice is a huge and unforgivable mistake because it is “purely ideological and we cannot tolerate and not being outraged by this path chosen by the federal government”.21


Reflecting on the correlations of forces in a society where the particularities of dependent capitalism impose strong structural and political barriers, further stifled by the counter reformist specifics of the neoliberal historical bloc, is an arduous and complex task. In this sense, the need to do so in view of the correlations of groups in power within the small politics and in the context of educational policies offers no facilitator to the task, quite the contrary.

Returning to our questions about the apparent dispute or tension between the leading business of Brazilian educational politics and the current group ahead of the MEC, we cannot disregard the coalitions that orbit the education: an Olavist wing, linked to the far-right ideologue Olavo de Carvalho; a military wing, which presents itself as the society intellectual organizer at all costs and above ordinary ideological lines; a wing very close to the evangelical contingent, which although not directly part of the MEC executive team exerts strong pressure on its members and their decisions, safeguarding Christian morality, criticizing state secularism, being intolerant to the modernity of human and social relations, still governed by the orthodox neoliberal wing, whose first and last objective is the primacy of the market.

This political arrangement wages a constant internal and belligerent war of small power, characteristic of the clan that exercises the executive power. To the dismay of those who watch, this war is strongly challenged by the operative unpreparedness and the disruptive historical ignorance of Brazilian education and its dynamics.

We do not understand, however, that the process of empresariamento as a whole underlies this tension, as there are indications that the commodification and marketization of education will be deepened. The subsumption of education to entrepreneurship is the dimension of empresariamento that, in our view, underlies this conflict. And what seems central to us is the exacerbation of coercive elements in the exercise of hegemony over the working class.

It is in this sense that we need to reflect to what extent the attitude of the MEC leaders, which embrace, but certainly transcend the discursive sphere, directly challenge the work of conquest, consensus organization and the subjugation by the business community. In our view, the ethical-political issue tangent to the maintenance of conformity is the focal point of the tension of the business community. This business community is fully aware of the danger posed by carelessness towards the conformation of workers.

From this side of the trench, it cannot be said that the intent of the big politics governs our action, because there is no concrete alternative that distances itself from re-governing the bourgeois state. It seems to us that the social revolution has become such a remote possibility that it does not even govern the movement of actors on the political scene in the same way. Precisely in this sense, in addition to the mediocrity of the great majority of bourgeois disputes in the present time, we can speak of the hegemony of the very small politics within the MEC. Certainly, the coming into power of a far-right group, articulated with the economic project of unrestricted privatization and the extermination of social protection mechanisms is a new determinant that above all exacerbates archaic elements of the Brazilian social formation, where: “dying and killing from hunger, anger and thirst are so often natural gestures”22. In this scenario of extremism, where day after day a death penalty is thrown and sparks of indignation warm hearts and minds, the only statement that can be made without the possibility of misconception is that there is no other way out: only the organization of resistance, based on ethical and political issues, can prevent the complete defeat of the working class.


Andrade M. C. and Motta V., Base Nacional Comum Curricular e Novo Ensino Médio: Uma análise à luz de categorias de Florestan Fernandes, in “Revista Histed-BR”, ISSN: 16762584. No prelo.

Coutinho C. N. A hegemonia da pequena política. In: Francisco de Oliveira; Ruy Braga; Cibele Rizek. Hegemonia às avessas: economia, política e cultura na era da servidão financeira, Boitempo, São Paulo 2010.

Diniz E., Empresariado industrial, representação de interesses e ação política: trajetória histórica e novas configurações, in “Revista Política e Sociedade”, v. 9, n. 17 p. 101-139, out. 2010.

Ferreira P. Especialistas em educação criticam projeto de escolas cívico-militares lançado pelo governo. Available in: < 23929588> , accessed 25 Sep 2019.

Fontes V., O Brasil e o capital imperialismo: teoria e história, EPSJV/Editora UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 2010.

Gramsci A., Cadernos do Cárcere, volume 2, Civilização Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro 2001.

Iasi M., Ensaios sobre consciência e emancipação, Expressão popular, São Paulo 2011.

Iasi M., O fetichismo e as formas políticas: o Estado burguês na forma burlesca. Available in: <>, accessed Feb 04 2019.

Iasi M., Olavo, a pós-modernidade e o pequeno príncipe. Available in: <> , accessed 10 Oct 2019. 2019b.

Leher R., A educação no governo Lula da Silva: a ruptura que não aconteceu. In: Os anos Lula: contribuições para um balanço crítico 2003-2010, p. 369-411, Garamond, Rio de Janeiro 2010.

Motta V and Andrade M.C., Conteúdo e forma do empresariamento da educação no tempo presente: da capitalização à subsunção ao empresariado. Anais Marx e o Marxismo2019: marxismo sem tabus, enfrentando opressões. Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, agosto de 2019.

Pinassi M., Novo governo é renovação ampliada da dependência brasileira. Available in: <>, accessed: Jan 09 2019.

Redação Agência Senado. Novo governo promete mudanças profundas na educação. Available in: <>, accessed 10 Oct 2019.

Revista Exame. Quem é Abraham Weintraub, o novo ministro da educação anunciado hoje. Available in: <> , accessed 10 Oct 2019.

Rodrigues J. O moderno príncipe industrial: o pensamento pedagógico da Confederação Nacional da Indústria, Autores associados, Campinas 1998.

Todos Pela Educação. 2019: o que esperar para o ensino médio? Available in: <> , accessed 10 Oct 2019.

Veja Exame – 100 dias de governo”. Disponível:, accessed 10 Oct 2019.


1 V. Motta and M.C. Andrade, Conteúdo e forma do empresariamento da educação no tempo presente: da capitalização à subsunção ao empresariado, Anais Marx e o Marxismo2019: marxismo sem tabus, enfrentando opressões. Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, agosto de 2019.

2 We employ empresariado to refer to a select group of businessmen (bankers, industrialists, farmers, financiers and their executives) who, endowed with a certain “technical and managerial capacity”, assume a prestige position and, therefore, confidence in the social relationship of capitalist production. With this expression, based on the concept of organic intellectual of Gramsci’s (2001), we seek to embrace the business logic – its technical capacity that penetrates all spheres of social relationship through various control mechanisms – and above all its capacity of leadership, consensus production, heavily armored by coercion.

3 ibid.

4 V. Fontes, Brasil e o capital imperialismo: teoria e história, EPSJV/Editora UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 2010.

5 J. Rodrigues, O moderno príncipe industrial: o pensamento pedagógico da Confederação Nacional da Indústria, Autores associados, Campinas 1998.

6 E. Diniz, Empresariado industrial, representação de interesses e ação política: trajetória histórica e novas configurações, in “Revista Política e Sociedade, v. 9, n. 17 p. 101-139, out. 2010.

7 A. Gramsci, Cadernos do Cárcere, volume 2, Civilização Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro 2001.

8 R. Leher, A educação no governo Lula da Silva: a ruptura que não aconteceu. In: Os anos Lula: contribuições para um balanço crítico 2003-2010, p. 369-411, Garamond, Rio de Janeiro 2010.

9 A. Gramsci, cit.

10 C.N. Coutinho, A hegemonia da pequena política, In F. de Oliveira, R. Braga and C. Rizek, Hegemonia às avessas: economia, política e cultura na era da servidão financeira, Boitempo, São Paulo 2010.

11 M. Iasi, O fetichismo e as formas políticas: o Estado burguês na forma burlesca. url <>, 2019.

12 M. Iasi, Olavo, a pós-modernidade e o pequeno príncipe. url: <, 2019.

13 M. Pinassi, Novo governo é renovação ampliada da dependência brasileira. url: <>, accessed: Jan 09 2019.

14 Agência Senado Magazine, 2019.

15 Todos Pela Educação, O que esperar para o ensino médio? url <> , accessed 10 Oct 2019.

16 Available: Accessed: 05/03/2019.

17 Pension specialist and with most of his career in the financial market (including as a director of Votorantim bank), Weintraub holds a degree in economics from the University of São Paulo, a master’s degree in finance administration from the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV) and no PhD, although Bolsonaro opted for the vocative doctor.

18 Twenty-ninth minute of the video available in Exame Magazine (2019, s./p.).

19 Available: Accessed: 15/06/2019.

20 Available: Accessed: 15/06/2019.

21 P. Ferreira, Especialistas em educação criticam projeto de escolas cívico-militares lançado pelo governo. url < 23929588> , accessed 25 Sep 2019.

22 Reference to the lyrics Podres Poderes by Caetano Veloso.


Vânia Motta, PhD, is Professor at the Faculty of Education of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil.

Maria Carolina Andrade is Master student at the UFRJ School of Education.