by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In my latest article, I entertained readers with rumors whispered from time to time by a well-hidden network calling the TFP an extremist right-wing organization. The rumors’ persistence requires me to return to the subject occasionally, so I am again addressing this issue. However, I wish to close this matter today—at least until the rumor resurfaces, but I do hope this will not happen anytime soon.
* * *
In this column, I have already debunked the false claim that the TFP is Nazi-fascist. The weekly newspaper Legionário, then the unofficial voice of the Archdiocese of São Paulo, was a leader in anti-Nazi-fascist resistance within Catholic circles when I was its editor-in-chief.
Furthermore, there is nothing Nazi-fascist about the TFP. We have never used violence and stick solely to ideological actions. Our entire philosophy, grounded in the principle of subsidiarity, is fundamentally against totalitarianism.
With this in mind, the rumor mills resorted to another trick. They claim that we are right-wing extremists because we defend the regime of private property with all its abuses. In my latest article, I asked any rumor monger to point out where in our publications they find the defense of these abuses. Naturally, a heavy silence followed my request because no one had anything to respond.
This might have been enough to alert my readers about this network’s tricks, but I have something even better that I’ll now explain.
* * *
It is quite true that the TFP opposed Jango’s agrarian reform, just as it did against the late President Castelo Branco’s land reform program by issuing a bold protest in the press. (Incidentally, this did not stop the late head of state from expressing his sympathy publicly.) It is also true that, when it comes to agrarian reform, our position remains exactly the same. Is this alone enough to label us as right-wing extremists? Are the many Brazilians who disagree with land reform right-wing extremists?
However, some may argue that opposing land reform means supporting all the abuses of the current rural system. This perspective pushes the right-wing stance on the issue to an extreme. I disagree. Neither the TFP nor the many Brazilians who think like it on this particular issue supports such abuses. Let me demonstrate.
In Brazil, the greatest abuse is the existence of a large landowner who owns 70% of our territory and keeps almost all of it unexploited. This large landowner is the State, including the federal, state, and municipal governments. For this reason, the TFP supports the brave public efforts for an urgent development of our “hinterland.” Is this extremism on our part?
For similar reasons, the TFP supports private land developers and urges the government to enable them to participate actively—alongside public authorities—in the subdivision and settlement of vacant lands. Is this extremism?
As supporters of a rural structure that harmoniously includes large, medium, and small properties, we request the government to provide serious guarantees for all of them, along with special support for small properties. Is this extremism?
As advocates for agricultural development, we urge for incentives for cooperatives. Is this extremism?
We want rural workers to receive a wage that matches the value of their work and their families’ needs, allowing them to save money. We hope that these savings will help hardworking and frugal rural workers to become landowners whenever possible. Is this extreme?
We strongly support sharecropping and partnerships, which give workers a stake in the owner’s profits. Is this extremism?
If anyone thinks so, let them say it and justify their surprising point of view.
Let’s move on to a different field.
During the Goulart period and that of his successors, the TFP often opposed the confusing amalgam of tenancy laws that had been in vogue until recently.
As we stated then, the situation created by this legislation was unfair. It amounted to little more than the confiscation of property to benefit the tenant. Furthermore, by driving away poorly compensated capital, it reduced the number of urban developments and led to a disastrous worsening of the housing crisis. We were correct, and most people agreed, so tenancy laws were gradually almost entirely repealed to everyone’s satisfaction. Are the people who repealed those laws, those who applauded their repeal and consider the current situation acceptable, extremists? If they are not, why should the TFP, and only the TFP, be labeled as extremist?
Regarding corporate reform, the TFP believes there are cases where worker participation in company profits, ownership, and management might be advisable. In such instances, it should be introduced through voluntary agreement between employers and workers, with appropriate government encouragement. The TFP also affirms that such participation may be unsuitable in many specific situations. Therefore, the TFP argues that legally forcing this participation in all companies is clearly unjust, confiscatory, and harmful to the common good. Is this extremism? Think again, because the TFP maintains that its stance fully aligns with the pontifical documents of Leo XIII and his successors. Are these documents extremist? Someone might say, “I do not interpret these documents this way.” My response: Then go public, and we will see who is right.
Regarding wages for industrial and commercial workers, also based on papal documents, the TFP seeks the same as for rural workers. Once again, is this extremism?
Finally, let it not be said that the TFP is only taking such positions now to refute the smears. We have widely disseminated two works, one from 1960 and the other from 1964: Agrarian Reform, a Question of Conscience, and the Morro Alto Declaration, in which are found everything we just stated. Just read them.
As the reader can see, this reflects how most Brazilians think and feel. So, if the TFP is considered a right-wing extremist because of its stance on private property, I ask, who in Brazil isn’t a right-wing extremist?
* * *
Finally, the last objection: The TFP dangerously radicalizes the ideological process with its clear stance on private property. As a result, it also radicalizes the political process. I believe exactly the opposite. If this radicalization exists, it stems from the smear network. To broadly label such a large portion of the population as right-wing extremists, implicitly trying to marginalize them from ideological dialogue and civic coexistence, is to recklessly radicalize our public life.
* * *
In this first contact with my readers in the New Year, all that remains is to wish them all the blessings of Heaven. Including for those who smear, those who believe them, and the “toads.”