Eyes Finally Open? – Folha de S. Paulo, November 9, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Is the term “reactionary” complimentary or offensive? “Come on,” any progressive reader will respond, “of course it’s offensive!”

In my view, this response is too simplistic. In fact, a reactionary is someone who reacts. What would the world be like if no one responded to error, evil, ignorance, poverty, disease, etc.? There are reasonable and necessary reactions. Those who do engage in them deserve to be called reactionaries. Therefore, “reactionary” does not necessarily have a negative connotation. On the contrary, it can have very admirable meanings.

Progressive propaganda has really given this word a terrible connotation, which it’s easier to understand through comparisons than definitions, and has become inseparable from it in some circles.

In common progressive parlance, a typical reactionary is someone who desires an all-powerful dictatorship for their country, where all individual rights depend on a single leader. This leader would have the authority to control everyone’s labor and production as he sees fit. He could assign tasks and schedules at will, change customs at his convenience, and even intervene in religion by altering or moving religious holidays like Easter or Christmas whenever he pleases. Faced with this undeniably grim scenario, progressives start to cry out about tyranny, Nazism, and so on.

Again, the progressives’ stance seems strange. I just read in the press that Fidel Castro has decided that Cubans will skip Christmas and New Year celebrations in the coming months. Instead, they will be harvesting cane to increase sugar production. The celebrations have been postponed until July.

Therefore, progressives should view Fidel Castro as a typical reactionary.

Not so. Progressives readily excuse actions by the left, which they sometimes rightly criticize when done by the right (or pseudo-right).

* * *

This observation is very timely. According to a report that the Special Commission on Cuba presented to the Inter-American Press Association, which is currently meeting in Washington, Fidel Castro, pressured by economic and diplomatic failures of various kinds, is considering changing his policy toward Latin America and proposing a regime of peaceful coexistence to stay in power. Juanita Castro, Fidel’s sister, warned the Commission that, supported by “maneuvers by some sectors in the United States and Latin America,” Cuban communists are committed to preventing or at least delaying the liberation of the Cuban people from Marxism, and would even consider overthrowing the fragile dictator and replacing him with some other red leader to improve the situation.

As is evident, this change would lead outsiders to believe that communism is losing its intensity. Consequently, this perception would foster a climate conducive to coexistence. By alleviating the tensions that strangle Cuban communism, coexistence would breathe new life into it.

Thus, with or without Fidel, red Cuba would inevitably move toward a deceptive and harmful coexistence.

It is therefore understandable that the Commission has asked the IAPA to “maintain constant vigilance over coexistence machinations that have intensified in recent months” to support Cuban communism.

Yes, stay vigilant against red reactionaries—whether they are Fidel and his followers or another group that succeeds them. They are all reactionaries in the most negative sense of the word, and genuinely red.

Will we see you, progressives, who boast of staunchly opposing all reactions, join the fray against the machinations of red reactionaries?

Will your easily predictable omission finally open the eyes of the naive?