The Semi-Agrarian Reformists, Those Useful Innocents – Folha de S. Paulo, November 5, 1986

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

In my latest article, I urged fellow farmers not to fall for the naive ploy of certain colleagues who think they can win the support of the hordes of “landless” people and the pro–land reform media by proclaiming their own backing for agrarian reform, while discreetly suggesting that agrarian reform is just the confiscation of “idle” lands.

I have already shown that, in any dispute, this transparent little trick would be quickly exposed by the left, which would then mock it. In doing so, they would succeed in changing the moral image of the farmer in the eyes of the non-rural public. The rural producer — once respected for his seriousness and honesty, as well as for the valuable service he provides to the country — would become the target of widespread ridicule, clearly benefiting proponents of socialist and confiscatory land reform.

This little scheme would cause even more serious damage to the institution of rural property by trying to create a false common cause between rural producers who carefully cultivate their lands under private property principles and those who oppose that very principle — advocates of agrarian and urban reform who are already eyeing future reforms of industrial and commercial enterprises.

Understand reform to mean confiscation. Understand confiscation to mean the extinction of property rights. Each of these reforms forms part of the gradual transformation through which the far left seeks to drag Brazil from a regime of individual property to one of state communism — or even to a form of self‑managing ultra‑communism.

Which of these “fellow travelers” will serve as the innocent pawn in this strange united front, where both land-reform extremists and semi-reformists march together to dismantle a portion of the private property system — specifically, the ownership of so-called “idle” land? And who will play the part of the clever opportunist?

First of all, consider that communist tactics often depend on forming alliances with opposing groups — a strategy they refer to as the “fellow traveler” tactic. In my experience, I have not seen a single instance where, at the crucial moment, the communists allowed themselves to act as “useful innocents” to their own harm and advantage their so-called fellow travelers.

It is highly doubtful that, for the first time, Brazil’s moderate land reformists—those who accept agrarian reform concerning so-called idle lands—would make an exception and thereby ensure that the intransigent reformists, so congenial to and modeled after the PCB and the PC do B, would resign themselves per omnia saecula saeculorum to the maintenance of private ownership of productive lands.

Moderate land‑reformers may object: Why do you see such a problem in carrying out agrarian reform on idle large estates whose owners hold them solely to profit from the high prices achieved over time through factors that owe nothing to the owner’s personal labor? Idle estates, owned by equally idle landowners — is this not a flagrant injustice? Can a man honestly derive profit or advantage from anything other than his own labor? And, moreover, to the detriment of the common good, since these unproductive lands are sorely needed for the sustenance of the landless and for the stimulation of national agricultural production? Does this not constitute a heap of ignominies piled one upon another, which the decisive blow of confiscatory expropriation can — and must — punish in a just manner?

 I reply:

1. If Brazil did not possess the vast tracts of unoccupied land that everyone knows exist, the moderate land‑reformers might, in theory, have a valid point. Through a natural and spontaneous process, the constant growth of the population — notwithstanding divorce, which always reduces the number of children, abortion, and similar factors — will lead to the settlement of these uninhabited areas. But once such lands are fully settled, circumstances may well require, beyond the year 2000, the utilization of all unoccupied (“idle”) lands belonging to private individuals as well. This would be an effect of the social function of land ownership.

However, even in this case, I find it incomprehensible that the compulsory expropriation of unused land would necessarily require compensation at a low price. Since such expropriation would be for the benefit of society as a whole, I don’t see why, even if the benefits to the country are significant, the compensation to the owner should be minimal.

2. In reality, however, given that Brazil possesses such an immense expanse of unclaimed land — to which must be added the government‑owned lands — I cannot understand how it is not a sacred imperative of justice to meet the public need for cultivable land by making use of these areas, which, more than any others, are naturally suited to that purpose. They belong to the nation, to the public; they exist by right for the collective benefit of the people.

Now, the moderate land reformers — who find themselves “on the same page” as the radical reformists of the PCB and PC do B on the issue of agrarian reform — argue that, given Brazil’s current situation, the government’s expropriation and confiscation measures should be applied universally to idle lands owned by both the state and private individuals. This amounts to claiming that property rights — which bind each unused parcel of land to its rightful owner — should be ignored entirely.

If the moderate land reform advocates claim that, on unused private land, the government has the right to act as though the owner does not exist and his right to the property is null and void, they implicitly acknowledge that the government may, in the name of the collective good, declare the rights of certain private owners — or even all owners — to be nonexistent. The entire institution of private property would then be swept away, and the gates thrown open to a communist regime.