Well it boils down to this is considered vulgar economic theory at least according to my understanding. Poor people do not always vote with right-wing disenfranchised parties and rich people do not always vote in liberal elites Which is the assumption this poster is making.

It boils actually due to a lot of different misunderstandings. While a lot of rural people do live in poverty and that poverty could be measured as worse. By headcount, there's more people living in poverty in cities than there are in rural areas which already completely defeats the first assumption that this poster makes which is that pops in cities tend to have more money And so they vote left. Which actually isn't accurate. According to Pew Research Center, those living in poverty in a city or town are much more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate than those Who have a salary over $100,000.

In both anarchist theory and in communist theory, It's been well established that the wealthy will vote in their own interests, Which typically is the far-right fascist party. So the second insinuation of the post, which is that rich people vote left, is also just not true. They tend to overwhelmingly vote for far-right parties. One just needs to look at the Princeton studies showing that the 1% of the wealthy's interests are overwhelmingly represented in our political policies to just know that they're happy with the state of things, Meanwhile, everybody else represent less than one percent of any influential change in the government. When former Biden administrators say public opinion does not dictate policy, they're not kidding. It could be the most unpopular policy ever, and it doesn't matter as long as the elites support it. Fuck, it might even do something like cost them the election, and they still won't change the policy.

The reason that we're seeing Bolsonaro over Lula kind of falls into what communists complain about with electoralism. The Politician who gets voted in is bought and sold for by the same system they are trying to defeat and thus are not able to make any rapid changes that will actually advance the needs of the people. Meanwhile, you can bring in somebody like Bolsonaro, who will just make changes willy-nilly, and the government will let him, and it feels like something material is changing. Even if all of the change materially benefits the rich, the fact that things are changing materially, shaking things up brings excitement to the poor folk who've been fucking ignored by the establishment, pretty consistently in every Western country. To them, they were never going to receive the benefits anyway. So, by seeing things get shaken up and other people get screwed, it means things might change enough that they might receive some benefits. This isn't a good position, nor is it one that makes sense, but it's a position that a lot of people have simply because they're sick Of the ineffective government they have today And there's no really good working class education for how to actually organize and defeat this type of system.