The PT (Workers' Party) is not afraid of Brazil.

The historian Marco Villa committed a article which reveals all the confusion of the opposition in constructing a coup-plotting alternative to the PT and its allies in government, but supported by a veneer of democracy. Let's go through the essential points of their reasoning, part by part.

1) "The Workers' Party aristocracy is experiencing its worst moment. And Lula will not leave power without first using all weapons, legal or not (...) He incited disorder, threatened opponents and called on the MST to act as an army, that is, to resort to armed confrontation against the adversaries of the criminal power project, so well defined by Minister Celso de Mello, of the STF." 

Now, at the end of the article, Villa says: "Now is the time to take to the streets." In other words, the opposition can and should use its legal constitutional rights of expression, assembly, and demonstration, but the PT cannot? We're not talking about a government reaction, a national broadcast, etc. We're talking about one citizen and several social movements. The historian knows that "army" was a metaphor. Now, certainly, "army" in this case is much more metaphorical than the "Military Intervention Now" displayed on banners at demonstrations held by supporters waiting for Aécio.

2) It turns out that for the historian, democratic discourse only serves one master, his "flock" (by Joaquim Barbosa). Let's see:

He says, drawing an analogy between Collor's impeachment and the current scenario (analogy in politics is what makes intelligence rest): "The current situation is different (...) The government has a solid supporting party (...) The congressional base is volatile but, apparently, still responds to the Presidential Palace. The disagreements with the main partner in the PT condominium, the PMDB, are growing but are far from a rupture. In 12 years, the government built (...) a structure of social support. And, unlike Collor, Lula established a solid relationship with factions of big capital — the “PT bourgeoisie” (...)". Further on, he reaches the point of confession: "It must be recognized that Fernando Collor accepted the political siege (...) And was legally removed from the Presidency without any gesture outside the limits of the Constitution".

The question then is whether the PT and its allies should remain inert, accepting the game of the supposed impeachment and not strengthen the party, resume dialogue with the base and with social movements, and much less cultivate allies in the business community.

3) The "situational analysis" that underpins the historian's thesis is a set of authoritarian subjectivities that contradict his own aforementioned statements. Let's see: "The government lost legitimacy right from the start. Dilma is not capable of governing, she lacks respectability, she doesn't have the confidence of investors, businesspeople, and the political elite. And, above all, she no longer has the support of Brazilians horrified by the corruption allegations." 

When Villa claims that the government has lost legitimacy, he believes his own lie, since he himself says that "Dilma is a zombie president, incredibly enough, despite the 54 million votes she received just over four months ago." In other words, with 54 million votes, no government or president is illegitimate. His fear is precisely that these 54 million will take action, led by her and Lula, who has already called for a reaction. Then, There are investors, businesspeople, sectors of the political elite, and Brazilians who support Dilma, Lula, the PT, and their allies. And their defense of the government is absolutely legitimate within the constitutional framework.

4) By stating that "Lula's strategy to remain in power at all costs is to seek confrontation, to divide the country, to pit class against class, region against region, party against party, Brazilian against Brazilian," Villa reveals what he truly believes in: a country that ignores regional inequalities and inequities, social class inequities and inequalities, a single-party system (the only case where there is no "party against party"), which is the broad hegemony of a "single thought," the great neoliberal myth to which Villa is devoted, that turns "Brazilian" into someone brutalized by values ​​propagated by the historian's friends, such as "there is no racism," "heterosexual pride," "no shorts in airports," "only rich kids go to university," "blacks in the service elevator," and so many other Nazi-like notions that people like Villa disseminate every day on radio and TV...

5) If Villa states that "the cost will be high," already threatening the country, and that "It is now that we will effectively test whether the Democratic Rule of Law works. It is now that we will see if there is a parliamentary opposition. It is now that we must occupy the streets. It is now that we will have to definitively face the dilemma: either Brazil politically ends PTism, or PTism destroys Brazil," we will oppose that, yes, Now is the time to test whether the government has a parliamentary (and institutional) base, whether the Democratic Rule of Law functions, and, with a large part of the 88 Constitution project carried out by Lula and Dilma, this benefited populace comes out in its defense and takes to the streets to show that Brazil is much more than "right-wingers vs. left-wingers" and that, sorry, but the PT does not fear "Brazil".

Finally, it's worth noting Rodrigo Constantino's article (http://www.brasil247.com/pt/247/midiatech/171835/Menino-maluquinho-da-direita-ironiza-Bresser-Pereira.htm): it's the old resentment because PT members have business allies, hold office, have mayors, governors, government members, artists, and can enjoy the social mobility of capitalism, yet still refuse to relinquish political sovereignty, economic independence, and social justice.