Canelas arrives Moscow in September of 1922 and perhaps it was better for the Brazilian Communists who it nor had fond. Its lack of knowledge on the politics of took it to the Party to commit a series of mistakes on some positions of the Communist of Brazil in the social matters and agrarian Party. Moreover in the debates on ' ' infiltrao' ' of not communist ideas in the Working-class movement, it always make a speeched against the orientation of the communist party of Soviet Unio (PCUS), that is, found natural this ' ' abertura' ' politics so recriminated by the direction of the International. Canelas uses the PC of Brazil as example of ' ' coexistncia' ' of you vary chains politics around a party. According to it, in Brazil the participation was natural of maons and of anarchists in the Communist Party? proper Bernardine Antonio Canelas when militated in the Brazilian Working-class movement in the years of 1916-18 if declared anarchist? that this situation did not have nothing of abnormal person. To close its participation in the International, Canelas concludes that not only the participation of maons was natural and anarchists in the communist movement, as well as the participation of catholics and Jews. The only difference in the militancy of these would be that, in the opinion of Canelas, them they could not reach responsibility positions politics.
The commission of the responsible International for a PC acceptance? s concludes saying that the PC of Brazil not yet was true Left a Communist one therefore suffered manicas and anarchic influences. The Communist Party of Brazil initially was only accepted as sympathetical member of the International. Only in 9 of December of 1924 when Rodolfo Ghioli, representative of the International, visits Brazil that the dumb situation. Ghioli observes that differences of the Communist Party of Brazil in relation to other PC? s, mainly in regards to the opening politics, was decurrent the situation of illegality and persecution of that the PC of Brazil was victim.
Walnut goes to affirm, that these two forms of participation, goes to be much more in tune with the proletariat and with the popular layers of what with the bourgeoisie. The author inserts them in a dimension daily pay? politics, but not irrelevant or inferior, therefore these would serve of mold for the associativismo? participativo model beyond horizontes corporative? that it would advance of meeting to the models inserted politicians-participativos in the State. The third type, would be the electoral participation, that if projects in the field politician. It is a participativo model, where the citizen supposedly would be not ripened, affirming not only in relation proper itself, but also in relation to all the collective. It weaves a critical one to this type of participation, for limiting the envolvement of the citizen, and for many times to cause frustrations that could result in despolitizao. the last great group, would be the participation politics, that would serve of complement, however surpassing in importance collective in such a way the electoral participation how much the corporative one. According to Walnut, For intermediary of the participation politics, individuals and groups they intervene to make with that differences and interests if explicitem in a common land organized by laws and institutions, as well as making with that the power if democratizes and either shared. this participation, in short, that it consolidates, protects and dinamiza the citizenship and all varied the right human beings.
The present article has as objective to carry through a literature survey that approaches the question of the informal work in the economy. It is intended to point the concepts, characteristics and peculiarities of this modality of work according to different identified theoretical perspectives in pertinent literature. This quarrel if shows excellent, since the advance of the Neoliberalismo from the decade of 1980 provoked unfoldings on the world of the work, revealing between its some aspects, a trajectory of growth of the informality in the work relations. The work contemplates, beyond this introduction, one second session in which is analyzed the three main theoretical chains that approach the informality of the work relations, as well as the new expressions assumed for this phenomenon in the contemporaneidade. The text is locked up with the final consideraes regarding the considered subject.
Already in the modern theory where Maquiavel if detaches, democracy is a republic form where the regimen of popular government is called republic and not democracy. The conception of democracy has left of the estimated one of the guarantee of basic rights as the rights of press, religion, thought freedom, of meeting, among others. Benjamin Constant, in the speech ' ' The compared freedom of the old ones with the one of modernos' ' , it emphasized that the freedom must be promoted and be developed through the body politician who if translates the assembly of the citizens. But, that a danger that is the freedom in fact, to the point of the citizen exists not to want more to participate of the power politician. Constant (C1985, p.6) says that ' ' The danger of the modern freedom is where, absorbed for the joy of private independence and in the search of particular interests, let us renounce our right too much easily to participate of the power poltico.' ' Thus being, the obligatoriness starts to be a resource for the functioning of the democracy. It can seem ambiguous, but the freedom necessary politics to be molded in way to become the participativa democracy, such needs to submit all the citizens to the examination of its interests for the power. The power that in the old one it formulates liberal emanates of the people for the people, can be understood in ironic way: the people as the set of the citizens of a country inside chooses some of of the nation assuming the power leading politician of the State, but to the representative installed being legally legal the elect one starts to have to be able it differentiates that it of chose that it, the majority of the people alone will take ownership of the again at any given time historical power.