The Garaudy Maneuver – Folha de S. Paulo, March 15, 1970

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Today, we will wrap up this series by examining aspects of the so-called convergence policy, which Roger Garaudy invites capitalists and communists of our time to adopt.

I’ll briefly outline this topic. Garaudy, an expert on religious issues for the French Communist Party, was one of the leading intellectuals who helped foster collaboration between communists and Catholics. Given the significant advantages that international communism gained and fully utilized, Garaudy’s role shouldn’t be seen just as an individual stance. The meeting between communists and Catholics was clearly a strategic move orchestrated by the top communist leadership, with Garaudy acting as their tool. Now, as he prepares for another “collaboration,” it’s clear that he is again acting on the orders of the same leadership.

Communists must persuade capitalists to adopt a surrender policy similar to that of progressive Catholics in other areas. Driven by the fear-sympathy stratagem I described earlier, the bourgeoisie might be convinced to give up significant parts of its power under the illusion that it’s better to “give in some so as not to lose all.” This could allow communists to make substantial and easy gains, moving them closer to final victory.

From this point of view, all the fuss made against Garaudy at the recent French Communist Party congress might be a show to convince the public that the French intellectual isn’t acting on behalf of the Kremlin.

That said, we won’t spend too much time on an individual’s thinking, but instead analyze it for signs of one of the most critical communist maneuvers ever.

I haven’t yet found in bookstores the recent work where the communist author describes the current direction of his thinking. However, news reports reveal key points that help identify the deception in Garaudy’s new move.

First, it should be noted that Garaudy does not criticize the goals and programs of the French Communist Party. He argues that no changes are necessary in this area. His criticism is limited to a secondary level: changing specific methods of thinking and action. Garaudy considers himself orthodox and disagrees with his country’s Communist Party, which strictly follows Moscow, based on communist orthodoxy.

In a speech at his party’s recent congress, Garaudy emphasized (as he did in his work, Marxisme du XXe Siècle) the fundamentally relativistic nature of Marx’s doctrine. He argues that Marx did not intend to create an ideal model of the socialist state that applies universally across all times and countries. From this, one can infer that there may be different ideal forms of socialism for the East and the West, for instance. Therefore, communists aligned with the master’s real thinking must be prepared to accept any new form of socialism that develops in the West.

Indeed, Garaudy believes that American capitalism, which he considers as the result of advanced evolution, is gradually transforming through concentration and other factors into a form of socialism, which tends to develop into an authentic, though unique, form of communism.

Therefore, one might conclude that the “marching wing” of the world’s communization is no longer limited to Moscow but also exists in the most “advanced” and developed parts of Western capitalism. In other words, opposing communism would be pointless, and fighting for it almost unnecessary: it will happen anyway.

The growth of the salaried workforce demonstrates this important shift and its effects on the modern explanation of some socialist ideas.

According to an outdated view, a wage earner is primarily a manual worker or technician belonging to the middle class who often relies more on fees than on a salary. Socialists argued he was a natural ally of owners against manual laborers.

Garaudy states that things have changed over time. The number of skilled and even highly skilled manual workers has increased significantly. Meanwhile, technicians are increasingly reduced to wage earners. This has shifted the old front of the social revolution, which now tends to unite manual workers and other wage earners against capital. Company directors are among these, as long as they are not the owners.

If we accept this at face value, it’s easy to see that capital, isolated and weakened, would have to surrender. According to Garaudy’s idea, enlightened capitalists who “give in some so as not to lose all” and accept progressively sacrificing their advantages to ensure others’ survival until individual ownership of the company finally disappears will remain independent and happy.

This will help avoid wars and social revolutions, letting the world stay peaceful.

This broad conception overlooks essential issues related to capital that might scare away the bourgeoisie, capitalists, or intellectual workers. For example, what distinguishes their actual living conditions from those of a manual laborer? What are the chances for an intellectual worker to manage savings and become the owner of individual assets? Will their children have opportunities for education and training comparable to their parents, ensuring some continuity of social status across generations?

Similar questions could be asked about the future of a former owner and his family.

Clever propaganda will find a convincing excuse for people to ignore all this. An inattentive and quick-to-judge reader might see it only as Garaudy’s musings about the tempting illusion of a new socialism that softens all edges and removes headaches.

* * *

In short, what is Garaudy’s ultimate goal in inviting the West to accept a supposedly new form of communism?

Earlier, he managed to lead some clergy and misguided lay Catholics to try to choke the Church with their own hands.

He is now trying to persuade the bourgeois masses to choke the class they belong to with their own hands.

This strategic perspective is the core of Garaudy’s new maneuver.

It’s a very clever move, given the failure of communism.

Yes, failure because communists would not even remotely be able to destroy the Church, private property, or the social hierarchy.

Then, what other solution do communists have but to attempt this double strangulation by the hands of the clergy and bourgeoisie?

This is perhaps their supreme maneuver to conquer the world without risk and bloodshed.