And which one of your many fragmented communist or socialist parties that combined has ~5% of the votes for your national congress is it that'd supposedly be strong enough to carry out such a takeover?
None of your big parties are anywhere near being communist, despite the history of some of their elements.
EDIT: Not that you should trust your government to run a "safe email service" regardless. See it for what it is: A way of showing how annoyed they are about the NSA revelations.
The president party is socialist and got much more than 5%. Deals with cuba, bringing doctors (which is almost slavery since they receive only 7% of the price, everything else goes to Cuba), teachers, the marxist brainwashing that teachers are doing on schools and colleges, "Foro de Sao Paulo", which is a reunion of the current party of the president, presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and the colombian Farc, the list goes on and on.
A comment that clearly doesn't understand our political system.
Party fragmentation is a non-issue, as they'll get combined. We are suffering a communist takeover - in everything but name - from some of the biggest parties around (including parties that used to have "liberal" on their name just shortly ago). Those parties that call themselves communist are quite divided, some supporting and some opposing the takeover.
> Party fragmentation is a non-issue, as they'll get combined.
That's an amusing claim given that most of these parties don't even get enough votes to get seats.
> We are suffering a communist takeover - in everything but name - from some of the biggest parties around
Pray tell which of your "biggest parties around" is it that you believe are socialist in anything but name?
I find this idea of a communist takeover bizarre: You've gone from a country with armed marxist guerrilla movements fighting a right wing military dictatorship, to a country where the president is an ex-marxist guerrilla.... Yet she represents a party that is no longer any further left than moderate social democrats, and hear policies places her pretty much as a centrist by European standards (and we don't have many actual socialists any more either) - heck, some of what she's done (her inflexibility in dealing with strikes, for example) would've made Maggie Thatcher proud.
I believe socialism rather than communism is what you meat there. The state in Brazil has been inflated for the past few years under Partido dos Trabalhadores' government, but communism is stateless.
In a sense communism is very similar to anarchy, except it goes through a socialist stage in which government controls everything to educate and take away the capitalist thinking of the society.
Brazil has been slowly but surely augmenting the State and it's tentacles throughout the society, but the thinking is not that of transitioning later to the stateless communism but that of maintaining and/or increasing the corrupt great capitalists' grip on society.
