“Sprinkle Sugar on Them!” – Folha de S. Paulo, January 30, 1972
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The myth that communism is highly popular is not only persistent but also dangerous, as it leads many people—sometimes in the most influential parts of religious and social life—to make astonishing concessions to the communist movement.
In the past, career politicians willingly yielded to the demands of powerful figures, even when those demands were absurd. Rewards and praise often compensated for sacrificing personal preferences. Today, many believe that power belongs to the people. Therefore, winning their favor is essential to gaining popularity, success, and influence. Now, since the masses tend to be communist, or at least favor communism, it is important to stay on good terms with them.
Ambition alone does not drive this policy of concession; it is also a misguided love of harmony. Since the masses are communist or leaning toward communism, one must either oppose them or yield. The opposition will lead to tragic and pointless upheavals, as the masses will eventually succeed. Therefore, it is better to yield.
These and other reasons fuel a strong, ongoing movement across the free world to gradually (or rapidly, if necessary) yield ground in response to the red onslaught.
Therefore, it is crucial to strip communists of the many advantages that appeasement provides. This can be accomplished through an ad hominem argument—one that disarms and reassures the appeasers.
Such an argument is simple. It is false that, in our time, the masses are communist. They reject communism whenever they have the chance to speak out. The true Reds, or at least those inclined toward communism, are the “toads”—a large part of the ruling classes, which the appeasers believe are hopelessly doomed by history.
If we want to persuade many fearful people of this truth, we must emphasize this point whenever the news in the newspapers allows us to do so. That’s what we do.
* * *
In this context, the elections in Chile to fill vacancies in the House and Senate were revealing.
They occurred on the 16th in the provinces of O’Higgins, Colchagua, and Linares.
Several circumstances contributed to making these elections a test of the electorate’s tendencies nationwide.
In fact, they occurred during a period when, across the north-to-south span of the Andean nation, two main ideological factions were clashing: the pro-government group, led by the Marxist president, and the anti-Marxist opposition. The intense struggle between them pushed aside all personal and local rivalries. In the provinces mentioned, these two national forces collided, dedicating all their propaganda efforts, the influence of their top leaders, and the full might of their party organizations to the election.
Additionally, about 8% of Chilean voters live in the provinces of O’Higgins, Colchagua, and Linares.
The poll results clearly constitute a test of national importance.
In this test, one factor would favor the leftists: the province of O’Higgins-Colchagua is home to the world’s largest copper mine, which has a significant concentration of workers.
Another key factor favoring the leftists is that Chile is experiencing a period of violence, primarily driven by the government. As is well known, the Chilean press is under government pressure. Left-leaning media outlets receive all official support and perks, while opposition media barely survive under a regime of coercion and intimidation. The same pattern holds for radio and TV. Additionally, much of the mass media is owned by the government itself. But the government has other tools as well. The left controls all public offices. For its supporters, the tax authorities act like a caring, permissive mother who overlooks everything. The police protect them, vigilantly guarding their safety and property. Conversely, opposition members face relentless persecution. They endure excessive taxation, manipulation through income tax audits, and a refusal to use force to protect their right to life, physical safety, and property.
Alongside government violence, there is unofficial communist violence. With more or less impunity, members of the MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) attack those who oppose Marxism with fists or firearms.
Evidently, this pressure intimidates opposition leaders of all sizes, making it risky for them to encourage, guide, enlighten, or coordinate their electorate.
Therefore, all indications point to the pro-government side prevailing in the electoral test.
Yet, Marxism has been defeated, and the opposition has emerged victorious.
Who did this? The supposedly red masses…
* * *
I did not find any data on voter turnout in Brazilian newspapers. Such data would be crucial for assessing the actual strength of the forces in contention. Indeed, given the difficulties faced by the opposition, abstentions were naturally far more numerous in its camp than in that of the government. Furthermore, as is well known, the Marxist electorate is much more disciplined than the free-market electorate, and the vast majority of abstainers likely belonged to the opposition. Anyone wishing to understand the true extent of anti-Marxist opposition should consider adding at least a large proportion of abstainers to the votes cast for anti-government candidates.
Let us take a closer look at the numbers. In the O’Higgins and Colchagua provinces, the opposition senator won 52.7% of the vote, while the government won only 46.4%. In the latest election, held on April 4, 1971, the opposition won 49.3% of the vote in the same province, while the government received 49.6%. In Linares, the opposition candidate for the House of Representatives received 58.0% of the vote, compared with 40.9% for Popular Unity. In contrast, in last year’s April election, the opposition obtained 51.3% of the vote, while the government received 46.0%.
Thus, the significance of the vote is as clear as possible. Not only is the majority anti-Marxist, but anti-Marxism has also advanced under Allende’s government.
An interesting detail: the haste with which the Marxist president has implemented radical land reform has contributed to rural workers voting against the government. I am not the one saying this. Listing the causes of the defeat, the pro-government newspaper La Nación stated that “the peasant electorate was unable to keep up with the rapid pace of the profound reforms carried out in the country’s structure.” In other words, the peasants did not appreciate Comrade Allende’s land reform policy.
Thus, the meaning of the vote is as clear as can be. Not only is the majority anti-Marxist, but anti-Marxism has also advanced under Allende’s government.
What would a sellout say about this?
General Lanusse, for example, imagines he will win the votes of the masses in Argentina with his “generous” policy of abolishing ideological barriers. Does he realize that by giving Allende the green light in continental politics, he will not appear as the liberator of the oppressed Chilean masses but as their oppressor? That is how the Argentine masses will judge him.
Oh, how many political mistakes would those who imagine modern masses to be red avoid if they took the trouble to analyze the facts objectively!
* * *
Let us change the subject entirely.
An episode on a bus. A little priest, in shirt sleeves, between 40 and 50 years old, spoke very animatedly to a young woman of about 17 or 18. He went on at length against the TFP, arguing that it needed to be demolished. The young woman appeared uninterested in the priest, the TFP, or any topic unrelated to her personal life, so she just listened. The conversation died down, and the priest changed the subject.
He then commented on a large advertisement that sugar producers and exporters had published a few days earlier. It read “Throw sugar on them!” with the hammer and sickle on a black background. The advertisers, private businesses, congratulated themselves on exporting sugar to a communist regime opposed to all private initiative. The priest thought this was very clever and explained, “You can never destroy an adversary with polemics or force. The only way to fight communism is to treat communists with sugar.”
In her naiveté, the young woman asked the priest whether it would not be better to use the same tactic to liquidate the ominous TFP. He stammered. At that point, a hearty laugh came from the back seat, where two TFP volunteers urged the priest to answer the young woman’s question. The bus stopped, and she got off. Seeing her walk away, the priest said furiously, “These silly young girls don’t understand anything,” and turned his back. The two TFP volunteers continued laughing, and one said to the other: “Sometimes the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouths of innocents!”
The priest either did not hear or pretended not to hear.
