Do They Really Want Slavery? – Folha de S. Paulo, September 9, 1982
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
It’s well known that everyone has their own personality, which can be observed in many ways. For instance, when writing a newspaper article, which brings me to the topic.
I know some of my readers warmly support me, inspired by shared ideas. Others are angry, driven by strong disagreements. Still, the patient majority read me (somewhat reluctantly) with varying consistency, not because they always agree or disagree. Usually, they neither agree nor disagree with anyone but gather opposing views to form a simple “impression” of events—vague enough that they don’t fully engage, yet specific enough that they don’t feel completely blind in a world undergoing rapid changes.
Of course, I don’t mean to say that I am read by many or a few people. I’m simply stating that they exist, and, as far as I can tell, that is how they stand concerning my articles.
Here is my personal disposition. It is in my nature that, when faced with differentiation, nuance, and gradation, I do not feel comfortable until I have clarified my attractions or repulsions in response. Remaining hesitant, indifferent, or unresponsive is not my style.
Thus, because of these three types of readers, almost every article I write offers something special for each of them. I try to encourage and present new arguments to those who think like me. I debate with those who disagree. I speak kindly to those who are hesitant, in the sincere hope of giving them at least a little certainty in the sea of doubt where I see them struggle. I cannot consider this triad of attitudes without also stating my preferences, based on a criterion I define as follows: which ones do I most enjoy writing for?
The most entertaining thing for me isn’t thinking about those who applaud or hesitate, but rather those who foam with rage and read me mainly to get angry and define themselves “in contrast.” I enjoy the clash of arguments. It makes me feel good, and I appreciate the cross-examination of logic. In doing so, I genuinely try to encourage those who think like me and assist those who hesitate.
Therefore, I address these engaging “detractors” specifically to clarify that my latest article, “Social Function, Club, and Knife” (Folha de S. Paulo, 8/12/82), was written to spar with them.
I don’t understand why they usually argue and even roar only behind closed doors, and rarely contact me to settle things properly.
Here are some ideas to start a debate.
* * *
Let them understand that the global shift toward socialism is based on the widely promoted social function of property. Specifically, in Brazil, the wave of nationalizations that transferred a large part of our industrial sector to government control was driven by poor economic reasoning combined with doctrinal interpretations that overstated the social function of property. All of this has resulted in a disastrous outcome that no one disputes. The alarming campaign orchestrated by the CNBB to push the country further from capitalism focuses on the social function of property. The generally receptive and orderly public is being shaped through a process of “consciousness-raising,” agitation, electoral efforts, and a push to “Mitterrandize” Brazil. They are subjected to continuous, massive doses of one-sided, misleading rhetoric that the Basic Ecclesial Communities (CEBs) spread through their members.
All these masters and disciples of socialism claim to be passionate advocates of all kinds of freedom. In many instances, you can even hear the faint sound of anarchism.
In my latest article, I demonstrated clearly that this leads to the social body being enslaved to either the macro-tyrants of state collectivism or the micro-tyrants of small groups that make up the state.
Since this has been proven (and in no way refuted), I ask those in Brazil who are preparing for the great change whether they truly want to lead us into this slavery. If so, why don’t they admit it?
