“Plateau de Fromages” – Folha de S. Paulo, August 27, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

A few years ago, international communism stood as a unified doctrinal, cultural, and political force.

Later, this monolith began to break apart. In Europe, the Yugoslav and Albanian divisions appeared. In Asia, a large rift formed with China. This caused communist circles worldwide to split into two opposing factions: pro-Russian and pro-Chinese. The 1968 Marcusian revolution in Paris and the Czechoslovak unrest highlighted the difference between liberal and anarchic neo-communism and the fiercely authoritarian Soviet communism.

While all this was happening outside Russia, the monolithic nature of communism also underwent significant changes within the country. Khrushchev-era “thawed” communists appeared alongside traditional Stalinists. Then emerged post-Khrushchev communists, a seemingly mixed blend of Khrushchevism and Stalinism. Post-Khrushchev factions further split into doves and hawks. Ultimately, according to the detailed account by writer Anatoly Kuznetsov, Russian communism is losing its core identity and transforming into something brutal and undefined, full of surprises. The spirit of communism now seems to have retreated into the hearts of a few persecuted intellectuals.

In this overall view of heterogeneity and chaos, it seems that the pieces of communism have lost their shape, melted, and become magma, where the most diverse elements meet, mix, or push each other away without stopping to be part of the same liquid.

I am well aware that many explanations have been proposed for this phenomenon: rivalries among leaders and clans within Russia, conflicts of national interests within the Soviet bloc, outbreaks of liberalism in response to half a century of tyranny, and others. The world’s intelligentsia has taken it upon itself to develop these explanations. Philosophers, sociologists, and writers have speculated freely on the subject. Each one tries to explain the phenomenon from the perspective they observe it. These explanations often do not contradict each other and are shared with the public through books, lectures, magazines, and newspapers. Collectively, they foster in the Western opinion the belief that, at a certain moment, multiple and diverse factors rooted in the deepest, most mysterious aspects of reality have come into play and instantly shattered and dissolved the old monolith.

This belief assumes that the communists causing this chaos are sincere; they speak their minds and follow through on their words. Therefore, each has a plan to manipulate the red disorder, which they will see through to the end.

I don’t have the necessary information to determine if the many explanations stemming from this assumption are entirely objective. However, it seems unwise and illogical to accept as a basis for such a broad view of the current communist reality an assumption that hasn’t been thoroughly examined first.

First, let us observe that the Russia-China split, as boldly claimed in the press of these two powers, is much less severe than it seems. Points of contact between the two “greats” of communism remain vital, and both carefully keep them in the shadows. Moscow and Beijing continue supporting North Vietnam with such enthusiasm and strength that Nixon feels compelled to gradually abandon South Vietnam to its sad fate.

Secondly, let us not forget that Chiang Kai-shek hesitated to land his troops on mainland China to start a counterrevolution because the United States forbade him from doing so. Why this ban? Could the United States possibly be defeated by China? Clearly not. If the free Chinese don’t land to support their homeland’s anticommunists, it’s because the United States fears Soviet reprisals. For these reasons, we must admit that Russia and China are not as divided as they seem. And both are hiding something behind their much-publicized split.

But some readers may ask, what interest do all these seeming divisions within communism bring to the game? Isn’t it obvious that chaos only causes setbacks?

I find the word “only” to be quite frivolous. I see clear advantages and will highlight just one.

Moscow has cleverly attempted “peaceful coexistence” with the West for many years. In vain, Kremlin leaders have used all their propaganda tools to demobilize the global anticommunist reaction. Most Westerners suspected it was a trick and stayed stubbornly distant.

Now, with the monolith shattered, mistrust has decreased. Communism has begun to seem less Machiavellian. Its responses appear more spontaneous, openly revealing internal issues and seeming more “sincere.”

Additionally, the different currents within the communist landscape display a fascinating diversity. There is a version suited for every preference. Those in the Western world who value freedom, adventure, and daring can be attracted to Marcusian-style communism. The suffering of persecuted communist intellectuals in Russia can inspire those who enjoy sentimental stories. Conversely, those who prioritize order, organization, and structure see Duclos as the model of a thoughtful, intelligent, and strong leader. Those who favor aggression, violence, and crime no longer need detective novels but can explore the lives of Che Guevara and Camilo Torres or consider Mao Zedong’s maxims. On the other hand, if someone values dialogue, they can turn to the persuasive craftiness of the Italian Communist Party. If one expects everything from a policy of mutual concessions, then Ceaușescu of Romania and Tito of Yugoslavia serve as examples. In short, just as the classic French “plateau de fromages” offers cheeses for every taste, today’s communism is a vast “plateau” of different communist types, each appealing to different preferences.

Yes, for everyone, including some right-wingers. What could attract them more than the former communist dictatorship that some Kuznetsovs see forming in today’s Russia?

Nothing could better serve Russia’s goal of insidious coexistence than reducing universal mistrust and opening many areas of sympathy worldwide… while it arms itself to the teeth.

If this fragmentation of the communist bloc greatly benefits its cause, one must ask whether this “plateau de fromages,” which the communist bear offers the world, is not a clever maneuver.

A maneuver that clearly exploits many people, unaware that they are aiding it.