>>/54205/
> his speech never mentioned the Communist Party
Perhaps it was one of the constitutional amendments, he just did not mentioned it specifically in the speech itself.
> I was more intrigued by their mention of "the right-wing forces from whom the U.S. was already distancing itself or from the major industrialists or landowners whom the U.S. had already been willing to sell out"
> History proves Americans can abandon their allies, but Marxist analysis would absolutely rule out abandoning industrialists tied to American capital.
The chapter itself is about client maintenance by intervention. By default the US maintains the client regimes by giving them various assistance (like advice, helping them to get loans from the IMF or World Bank, transfers arms, etc.) but occasionally the US have to intervene actively to save the ass of the regime.
It can happen however that the US finds the regime fine, except the leader who starts steer away from them. The first things the bureaucrats including army officers and CIA agents think: we should coup his ass. Then they check what is the settis in the country:
1. the military supports the leader, but they are weak - coup is not possible, but the US military can do the necessary changes
2. the military supports the leader, and strong enough - coup is not possible, too much cost for the US army, so they just sit back and apply pressure on the regime, like denying weapon supplies, or preventing them to get loans (from IMF, World Bank), tariff them, etc. eg.: Venezuela since Chavez
3. Military neutral - coup is possible by changing the military's mind, US creates a proxy force as to intervene, prepares a US invasion to put pressure on, and encourages the military to do a coup, basically they dupe the military to think: if they don't eject the leader the US will crush them.
4. Military opposes the leader - coups is possible since they want to do it, US just gives the green light, then legitimizes the new leadership.
Remember these are all clients of the US already, "friendly" countries. In case of Brazil it seemed it will fall into category #2 due they perceived the army support Goulart enough, and the country is too big both territory and population to do something about it themselves. So they prepared to distance themselves so they can hamper and sabotage the country where they can with diplomatic and economic tools  Brazil could had went the Venezuela way. But the army signaled to the US that they are ready to remove Goulart, this meant option #4. The US let Brazil itself to take care of the leader whom the US perceived as a problem.

I really recommend the book, it gives quite a perspective on how to view USian relations. There should be a website for the book. I'm not sure if it is still up.