From Mustachioed Georgians to Cursillos in Christianity – Folha de S. Paulo, January 7, 1973
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Today, I intend to comment on a handful of diverse news items. In doing so, I will not follow the continuous thread of a strictly logical exposition but rather the changing course of a carefree conversation.
* * *
According to The New York Times, Moscow housewives prefer stalls run by Georgians, known for their famous mustaches, at the central market. They are the best suppliers of out-of-season fruits and vegetables.
This small fact, so banal in itself, is nevertheless of real interest. There still are, among Georgians—despite being members of the Soviet bloc—rural plots cultivated by their owners. Motivated by a legitimate and healthy desire for individual profit, these owners work harder and with greater care than the civil servants employed as settlers on state farms. Hence, the products Georgians offer in the Soviet capital are excellent and abundant.
It is thus clear that stimulating work through private initiative boosts production and reduces poverty, whereas collectivized labor discourages workers, reduces production, and spreads poverty. This is worth remembering to silence those among us who advocate collectivization as the best means of multiplying wealth.
* * *
The reader should not think that this strong statement shows I am completely backward. The new communist wave is discarding collectivism like an old hat.
In 1889, we adopted a positivist model for the Brazilian State, which we believed was the latest fashion in Paris.
In reality, that philosophical school had already begun to decline in France. As a result, we played the pitiful role of those who order new clothes to last year’s standards or of those who happily drink champagne opened the day before.
I fear Brazilian socialists will force us to repeat the same ridiculous procedure. They imagine collectivization is the most modern approach, so they flaunt a “brand-new” collectivism.
However, collectivism is falling apart in Europe, on both sides of the Iron Curtain. More and more people have lost all hope in it.
Here is one example among many others.
Just recently, a Rio de Janeiro morning newspaper published statements by Carlo Galuzzi, a senior leader of the Italian Communist Party, about what an “Italian-style” communist regime would look like today.
The “new look” of peninsular communism entails embracing the profit motive, the law of supply and demand, and the principles of the market economy. At the same time, it rejects systematic nationalization and centralized planning.
For these bold statements, Carlo Galuzzi was neither “excommunicated” nor reprimanded by his flock. On the contrary, he remains at the forefront of events, backed by the ICP.
It should be noted that the latter is the most important communist political association behind the Iron Curtain, making Galuzzi’s impunity particularly significant.
Perhaps the reader supposes that this spectacular “turnaround” by the communist leader is nothing more than a ploy to win over broader segments of the electorate. However, even if this is the case, the very need for such a ploy proves how much collectivist demands leave the masses cold and suspicious, even when they would be the beneficiaries. The communist leader considers it necessary to hide these demands to win over voters. Is this not proof that, to contemporary sensibilities, collectivism seems increasingly like an old idea that has been gathering dust for more than 120 years, since Marx conceived it?
* * *
These considerations remind me of Chile, where collectivism is increasingly casting its dark cloak of misery.
Despite certain democratic appearances in Allende’s governance, the Kremlin fears the Popular Union government will not survive. For this reason, it seeks to prop it up by force.
In the middle of last month, the daily press reported that Russia offered the Chilean government $50 million at 1% interest, on a 50-year term, for the purchase of Soviet military equipment.
Until then, only Cuba had accepted Russian weapons. This was less about defending itself against American aggression—highly unlikely in recent years—than about keeping the unfortunate population under control.
This illustrates the precarious nature of the stability of communist governments on our continent. What is the reason for this instability, if not the majority’s stubborn rejection of socialist collectivism?
At least Russia is rich enough to lend its money so generously; therefore, socialism might seem profitable to some communists. It will not be easy to disillusion them by reminding them that they would not have won the war nor escaped the cataclysm of misery that threatened them, including the agricultural collapse of 1972, without the loans and benefits of all kinds that the American government provided to its Soviet counterpart.
In short, the poorly employed abundance of wealth produced by the current regime in Western nations enables these dangerous Soviet “generosities.”
* * *
Finally, a quick word on another subject. I have heard that the president of the Cursillos in Burgos, Spain, has disavowed the letter by “some cursillistas” that I discussed in my latest article. I await the text of this surprising denial so I may comment on it here with readers.
Since I am discussing Cursillos, I would like to ask Most Rev. José Melhado de Campos, Bishop of Sorocaba, to make a correction.
A few days ago, I read in this newspaper his highly apologetic letter to Most Rev. Antônio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, about Cursillos. As proof that Cursillos are immaculate, the writer states that the movement exists in almost all European countries, except those behind the Iron Curtain.
This statement suggests that communist regimes do not tolerate Cursillos. However, it seems to me that Bishop Melhado is misinformed.
In fact, according to the Granada newspaper Ideal of July 12, 1972, Cursillos exist in Russia and in two other countries behind the Iron Curtain, Hungary and Yugoslavia. De Colores has even been translated into Croatian.
This penetration is attributed to Fr. Josef Garcia-Cascales, a native of Granada, who became an Austrian citizen to gain access to Eastern European countries. According to all indications, Father Cascales makes no secret of this action. His homeland’s newspaper prominently featured the news, accompanied by a striking photograph of the priest.
This leads us to believe that Cursillos does not fear communist repression, or, in other words, that it is well regarded by the regime.
What would happen, reader, if the TFP opened a branch in a communist country? Would it enjoy similar tolerance? Would it be enough for one of our members to become an Austrian citizen to take the TFP beyond the Iron Curtain with impunity?
From this contrast, the reader can gauge the depth of the points of affinity and sympathy between Cursillos and communist regimes.
