Umbrella-Holding Toad, a Maximum Danger – Folha de S. Paulo, September 17, 1969

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In his 1968 essay on Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom, Andrei D. Sakharov, one of the Soviet Union’s leading atomic physicists, summarized the international situation as follows:

1. If the United States and Russia go to war, a nuclear disaster is unavoidable.

2. Therefore, the only solution for the world is to establish a regime of peaceful coexistence that, on one hand, fully harmonizes relations between the two “great powers” and, on the other hand, reduces the differences between the developed and underdeveloped nations.

3. For such coexistence to lead to lasting peace, it must be more than a modus vivendi between hostile powers. The coexistence of the future must result in the complete removal of the causes of discord between the United States and Russia. Once this is achieved, Sakharov hopes that we will avoid the darkest future and enter a golden age. The two great powers will disarm and redirect the vast sums of dollars and rubles they now spend on military equipment to help underdeveloped countries. In this way, the “unified” world will finally experience peace.

Sakharov envisions two types of unification to achieve peace. The first involves merging communism and capitalism, where the West and the East adopt similar ways of thinking and living, thereby reducing many sources of misunderstanding. The second type of unification would be to unite all countries into a Universal Republic.

How can these two mergers be executed? The latter seems to result from the former, so let’s focus only on the first.

In two recent articles published in the well-known Madrid newspaper Ya, Mr. Luciano Perena clearly summarizes the thoughts of the Soviet scientist. He quotes Sakharov exactly: “Both capitalism and socialism must be willing to make long-term progress, each adopting the positive elements of the other and thus bringing about a mutual rapprochement on fundamental issues.”

Although a communist, Sakharov recognizes “genuine economic progress in the United States and capitalist countries” and asserts that they “really use the principles of socialism to produce an effective improvement in the living conditions of workers.” Given this situation, instead of moving toward war, communism should “ennoble” (!) capitalism by its example and other indirect forms of pressure and “merge with it.”

For their part, communists should view the ongoing ideological fragmentation within communism as a positive development and support political pluralism, which would strengthen effective democratic governance. This is how communism could benefit from enrichment by the West.

In short, Sakharov considers that effective political freedom, complete social equality, and total economic dirigisme are the key to helping the world avoid nuclear catastrophe.

* * *

I am sure any “toad” who reads this brief summary of Sakharov’s dream will tremble with joy at each new sentence, because this plan for a worldwide spread of communism, which crushes economic and social life under the same steamroller while also establishing political democracy, aligns perfectly with the utopias, panics, and villainy of bourgeois snobs in luxury cars who drive past TFP young men hurling communist-inspired insults and then speed away in a daring dash.

I believe “toads” pose a greater threat to Brazil than terrorists because I don’t think the national temperament is swayed by violence. However, I feel our public is sensitive to all kinds of reconciliation preachers, both false and genuine. Therefore, I believe that Sakharov’s illusion is very important for us in understanding the “toad” formula. Let me, therefore, raise some objections to it.

* * *

I will be schematic:

1. World War II was perhaps the bloodiest in history. When it began, the belligerents possessed weapons of destruction on an unpredictable scale: asphyxiating gases, bacteriological “bombs,” and more, which they chose not to use out of mutual interest. Now that the danger is far greater, mutual interest strongly encourages the combatants to avoid using the hydrogen bomb. As for the Western powers, no one doubts they will accept the same secret or tacit agreement with the communists that they had with the Nazis. Will the communists be ruthless enough to reject this agreement? Will Sakharov and the “toads” agree that the communists are more bloodthirsty than Hitler? If not, nuclear war is by no means certain.

2, In 1939, Hitler presented the world with a choice between a devastating war and accepting the Third Reich’s global dominance and the widespread spread of Nazism. Carrying his symbolic umbrella, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to accept concessions that only encouraged and strengthened the crazed Führer, ultimately leading to the outbreak of war.

I argue that, similarly, if the West becomes communized, with its social structure disrupted, its culture diminished, and its economy suppressed by socialist control, it will be far more vulnerable to the advancing fury of the Russians than it is now. In other words, by waving Chamberlain’s umbrella at the Russians, my “toads” are bringing on the war they claim not to want.

However, some “toads” may argue that international tensions are no longer ideological. If that’s true, I don’t see how ending these tensions could bring about peace.

3. Finally, the greatest contradiction lies in the “toadish” chimera of combining political freedom with economic tyranny, because political freedom cannot exist in a country where the entire economy depends on the government.

For all these reasons, I strongly disagree with the toads’ musings. They have already been drawn into Sakharov’s sinister plans.