Does 2+2 Still Equal 4? – Folha de S. Paulo, October 16, 1968

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

“Mr. President of the TFP.

This letter’s writer is not a communist—quite the opposite. He is a proud centrist, an admirer of tradition, an enthusiast of the family institution, and a citizen convinced that, with certain reservations, the right to private property still plays an important role in Brazil.

However, I am not an admirer of the entity you founded and lead because, in my view, it makes a mistake similar to communism. If communism is one extreme, the TFP is another, and all extremism is harmful.

Because I am not an extremist, my stance on communism differs greatly from TFP’s. We need to acknowledge both the positive and negative aspects of communism. It should be addressed with kindness and compromise rather than hostility or harsh measures. A rigid response only fuels the extremists, while concessions can calm them down and slow their momentum.

If we cherish tradition, let us praise the sense of tradition the Soviets have shown in the excellent organization of their lavish museums instead of claiming that today’s Russia is entirely the opposite of what it once was. If we love the family, let us loudly acknowledge that this institution also exists in communist countries. If we want to prevent them from destroying the Brazilian family, let us not make a drama out of the introduction of divorce, which could make the family institution less repulsive to communist tastes. Similarly, if we want to soften the communist attack on private property, let us support the basic reforms that the TFP calls “socialist and confiscatory.” Don’t you see that, once “reformed,” the ownership of real estate and businesses would provoke much less hatred among communists?

As a result of this concessional policy, well summarized by the concise phrase ‘give in some not to lose all,’ unpopular and risky repressive measures would become unnecessary for relaxed and semi-satisfied communists, demonstrating that my tactic is effective.

After all, if the TFP wants to defend tradition, family, and property from the lion threatening to devour them, why not appease him?

Therefore, in my opinion, the best way to protect tradition, family, and property is not to oppose communism, but—pardon my honesty—to shut down the TFP.”

This text accurately summarizes the thinking of the most clever and dangerous members of the left who masquerade as centrists. For this reason, I find it interesting to respond to the main points of this cunning argument in the form of a letter.

* * *

“Mr. So and so.

Those who genuinely uphold tradition see it as a vital part of a country’s life. I emphasize “life” for a good reason. Tradition is a legacy from the past that connects to the present to provide purpose and direction for the future. The so-called Soviet tradition, as you describe it (and I have doubts), is stored away in museums and lacks a real connection to everyday life, so it is not a true tradition. Museums are merely tombs of history when they display a past that the present rejects and despises.

Anyone who believes that the family is essential for development cannot agree that cohabitation should replace it. Now, according to communist doctrine, what is marriage but cohabitation engaged and disengaged with a few formalities as brief as circumstances allow? Furthermore, should we accept divorce just because communists see the dissolution of the marital bond as a step toward their cherished cohabitation “ideal”?

Can anyone who is aware that property is a sacred right inseparable from freedom and honest work agree that this right can be mutilated without harming work and liberty?

Furthermore, either property is a right that belongs to man by his spiritual and free nature, or it is not. If it is, is it fair and honest to mutilate that right to the detriment of millions of people just because communists hate it?

If you don’t believe it is a human right, then why not admit that you’re a communist?

Let’s move on to another point. You understand that repression encourages all forms of extremism, so you tremble when you see communism repressed. At the same time, you want the TFP to be shut down and are not afraid that this will boost our volunteers’ enthusiasm and numbers. Is this logical? As far as we are concerned, you believe our complete extinction would solve everything. So, one should only “give in some not to lose all” when making concessions to the left. What should one do regarding the right? “Crush it to avoid losing”?

Finally, is it true that everything entirely opposed to an extreme evil is itself extremely evil? So, are firefighters trying to put out a fire as hateful and fearsome as the fire itself? Is a campaign to eliminate illiteracy as evil as illiteracy itself?

The claim that the opposite of an extreme evil is another extreme evil is just wordplay. For example, the opposite of a lie is not another lie but the truth.

For this reason, the true opposite of communism is not the extreme counterpart, such as Nazism, which is also dirigiste, socialist, and totalitarian. Instead, the opposite of communism is the principle of subsidiarity, which the popes have explained well and can be summarized as follows:

Each person has the right and responsibility to do everything they can for themselves, and the family must help them with what they cannot accomplish on their own.
Every family has the right and responsibility to do everything it can for itself, and the municipality must support them in what they cannot accomplish alone.
The same applies to the relationship between the municipality and the province, as well as between the province and the country.

Furthermore, when one of these entities proves to be less self-sufficient than it naturally should be in its own sphere, the higher entity must help it survive and restore its normal level of self-sufficiency.

This is the opposite of Nazi and Communist extremes. This is what the TFP advocates, affirms, and proclaims. If this is considered extremism, then 2 plus 2 no longer equals 4.

Does 2+2 Still Equal 4? – Folha de S. Paulo, October 16, 1968

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

“Mr. President of the TFP.

This letter’s writer is not a communist—quite the opposite. He is a proud centrist, an admirer of tradition, an enthusiast of the family institution, and a citizen convinced that, with certain reservations, the right to private property still plays an important role in Brazil.

However, I am not an admirer of the entity you founded and lead because, in my view, it makes a mistake similar to communism. If communism is one extreme, the TFP is another, and all extremism is harmful.

As a result of this concessional policy, well summarized by the concise phrase ‘give in some not to lose all,’ unpopular and risky repressive measures would become unnecessary for relaxed and semi-satisfied communists, demonstrating that my tactic is effective.

After all, if the TFP wants to defend tradition, family, and property from the lion threatening to devour them, why not appease him?

Therefore, in my opinion, the best way to protect tradition, family, and property is not to oppose communism, but—pardon my honesty—to shut down the TFP.”

This text accurately summarizes the thinking of the most clever and dangerous members of the left who masquerade as centrists. For this reason, I find it interesting to respond to the main points of this cunning argument in the form of a letter.

* * *

“Mr. So and so.

Can anyone who is aware that property is a sacred right inseparable from freedom and honest work agree that this right can be mutilated without harming work and liberty?

Furthermore, either property is a right that belongs to man by his spiritual and free nature, or it is not. If it is, is it fair and honest to mutilate that right to the detriment of millions of people just because communists hate it?

If you don’t believe it is a human right, then why not admit that you’re a communist?

Finally, is it true that everything entirely opposed to an extreme evil is itself extremely evil? So, are firefighters trying to put out a fire as hateful and fearsome as the fire itself? Is a campaign to eliminate illiteracy as evil as illiteracy itself?

The claim that the opposite of an extreme evil is another extreme evil is just wordplay. For example, the opposite of a lie is not another lie but the truth.

For this reason, the true opposite of communism is not the extreme counterpart, such as Nazism, which is also dirigiste, socialist, and totalitarian. Instead, the opposite of communism is the principle of subsidiarity, which the popes have explained well and can be summarized as follows:

Each person has the right and responsibility to do everything they can for themselves, and the family must help them with what they cannot accomplish on their own.

Every family has the right and responsibility to do everything it can for itself, and the municipality must support them in what they cannot accomplish alone.

The same applies to the relationship between the municipality and the province, as well as between the province and the country.

Furthermore, when one of these entities proves to be less self-sufficient than it naturally should be in its own sphere, the higher entity must help it survive and restore its normal level of self-sufficiency.

This is the opposite of Nazi and Communist extremes. This is what the TFP advocates, affirms, and proclaims. If this is considered extremism, then 2 plus 2 no longer equals 4.

Contato