I have a certain terror of the word radicalism, therefore to be radical is to defend a thesis, but at the same time the expression passes me an idea, not to accept the opposite. Many world-wide conflicts, had had origin for its governing to defend radical ideas, are religious, ethnic and cultural they. Today in Brazil we have some left extreme parties, and right, this me cause a instigante curiosity, therefore if really they arrived at the power, as they would place in practical its ideas. The scaling to the power, of the current Brazilian government, sends in them to a transformation, since the foundation of the party of the workers, until the arrival to the central power for president Lula. This ' ' mudana' ' it made with that many sympathetical of abandoned it to the party. The motto ' ' it loves it or deixe' ' , very present at the time of the Brazilian military dictatorship it was revived. The old MDB, although to be a mixture of the existing oppositions in the period, of the dictatorship also it passed for this change, it had that to straighten itself, therefore arrived at the power in the after-dictatorship and had that to carry through diverse arrangements politicians in reason of the governabilidade. Today around of the world, we have innumerable governments, that they use to the dictatorship, the repression as form of if perpetuating in the power, and there I ask reader, you I agree to this line of thought.

To have an opinion and to know to argue are very important, but to know to hear I still consider of bigger importance. This thought is not only applied in the politics, but in all the sectors of the society. I dialogue me seems to be the word-key in a globalizado world, where everything is instantaneous and a simple action can be changedded into something gigantic, positive or not. The PT of today not the same, compared with the one of twenty years behind, but if had not suffered this ideological mutation would have obtained so important social advances, and even though the re-election in a country, where the social inaquality, still is alarming. This neoliberalismo petista cause arrepios in many, but really how much it will cost, for the petistas to remain itself in the power. I make a question now, if the president Squid, had looser the 1989 election, would have reached so great popularity? one asks complex, therefore the inflation in the end of the decade of 80 was alarming, to obtain any success, at that moment was practically impossible. Perhaps to have lost the election for Collor, has been the beginning of a matureness of the party as a whole, where to lose it was interesting, for the PT.