Architects, Politics and the Compromise during Brazilian Dictatorship

Fragement from On Architectural Linguistics (1974) that explains Lina Bo Bardi's opinion about the realtion between architecture and politics:

I am preparing a talk for the congress of the Brazilian Industrial Design Association, where I've been invited to opnen the event. The argument is as follows: noting can be done, there is no valid operation beyond that of a well-defined political structure. A political structure that is founded on social justice. Otherwise industrial design becomes styling at the service of the evident organizations, and architecture too (architecture "in itself" doesn't exist) becomes a gratuitous exercise. Of course this is an extreme argument, there are middle roads. But they are always roads of exessive compromise, which "compromise" the results. Operative praxis depents essentially on a political structure." [1]

I want to know more about the Brazilian political situation of that particular time. In 1974, a year after the oil crisis, Brazil faced serious economic problems, however, it was also the year that Ernesto Geisel became president. He is now seen as a more moderate persident, allowing allowed exiled citizens to return, restoring habeas corpus, repealed the extraordinary powers decreed by the Fifth Institutional Act. The Fith Institutional Act 'gave the president the power to dismiss the National Congress, strip politicians of their offices of power, and institutionalize repressive methods of rule.'[2] This law was installed by former president Arthur da Costa e Silva in 1968, after massive protest that broke out because of the death of a student in a confrontation with the police.
Lina Bo Bardi, who faced the war in Italy when see was young, and grow up in a fascist, militaristic Italy ruled by Mussolini must have been very disappointed to see the political development in Brazil during the 60s and 70s. Another aspect to take in consideration is the fact that Bo Bardi, like many influential architects at that time such as Vilanova Artigas, Oscar Niemeyer, Sérgio Ferra and Ridrigo Lefèvre were confirmed communist. Bo Bardi was already involved in the Italian communist party during the war in Italy. Architects like Sérgio Ferra and Ridrigo Lefèvre even spent a year in prison because of terrorist actions. [3] Despite the fact that I understand the attitude of the intellectuals at that time, it had a rather negative consequence. The result was that they were never really involved in significant public projects, like large social housing projects or buildings for the government. This becomes especially clear when we go through the build work of Vilanova Artigas, that contains dozens of avant-garde villa’s for the elite, showing only a few public buildings and social housing projects. However, it is unjust to simply blame the architect for this, probably the lack of commissions due to the bad investment climate plays an important role. At the same time I think that with the uncompromising attitude (like Bo Bardi proclaims in the quote above, or the involvement in terrorist actions) the architects put themselves out of action, having no influence in the public realm.
I have to admit that I am not sure about the accusing I am doing here. Probably the critical attitude was much more justified than I can overseen from my comfortable position in “Paradise Holland”.

[1] Lina Bo Bardi, 'Architectural Linguistics' (1974), 2G: Lina Bo Bardi: Build work, no. 23,24, 2002, p.220.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_da_Costa_e_Silva
[3] Richard J. Williams, Brazil: Modern architectures in history, Reaction Books, (2009) London, p.182.