I notice that some of my comrades are expressing concern over the direction of the present regime. Now I tread here with trepidation as there are critics and analysts far more perceptive than myself. But I really do not see the reason for such concern. The regime is fascist. And fascism does what fascism is.
But I am not actually singling out the People’s Partnership. Fascism is a core characteristic of our historical process. And it has been essentially thus (albeit under different names) from Columbus to Manning. Kamla has merely inherited this process and is doing her work. I must say rather well.
Now while some in the “left” may agree with me thus far the problem is that such fascism is seen as something bad. Well actually it is something bad, very bad…but there are one or two things that may actually be worse – like liberals. A moral liberalism that feeds the masses opiate idealistic values that serve to perpetuate the (fascist) system.
Now for some time now we in the left have been trafficking in such liberal discourse. Now this may have been necessary. Not only is the sentiment of justice here involved praiseworthy but it was viewed that this was as far as the masses could go in the prevailing objective and subjective conditions. So we were involved in some manner of trench warfare trying to eke out advances inch by inch.
Now it appears clear to me that globally the prevailing conditions are changing (or have changed apparently overnight) radically. But I am not ready to go there yet. First I want to get back to this fascism business, for there appears to me a danger of getting caught up in this liberal bull.
There seems to be this idea floating around that in the absence of Socialism let’s go with the best liberalism than we can get (and I am addressing here the ideologically serious not the sell outs). And if the regime is not addressing this then there is cause for concern. “You’re flouting our human rights… Bad Partnership!”
I propose that it is not with such liberalism but with fascism that we are ideologically and materially locked in a unity of dialectically conflicting opposites. And the question that perhaps we ought to be immediately asking is: What is the best fascism that we can get?
Now there is a standing mantra all the more dangerous because it is true that the difference between the PNM and the People’s Partnership is not one of essence but merely one of degree. Well the difference between freezing and boiling is one of degree, but what manner of degree?
The PNM represents the old decaying fascism that has totally and utterly poisoned and ruined this country. One of its own campaign slogans says it all – this is PNM country. I fail to see what there is to be proud of.
Sad to say it is true that to a very large extent this is still PNM country. The PNM-ism remains entrenched in its very marrow. But now we have a new, vibrant, vigorous fascism on the scene. Complete with young bright eyed and bushy tailed ideologically vacuous technocrats.
Here I wish to mention the “little Trinidadian paradox”. The People’s Partnership has been described as inept and inefficient because of its procedural “missteps”. In Trinidad it is the exact opposite that is true. Here structural competence and practical effectiveness are conflicting opposites. The regime’s incompetence is in reality a sign of its effectiveness. This has been the case of all the non-PNM regimes the NAR and the first UNC. The PNM on the other hand is over organized with structural moribund deadweight and is utterly ineffective.
So the immediate choice is between a fascism that is decaying and degenerate or one that is apparently moderate and vibrant. What is the best fascism that we can get?
And this is the ONLY choice we have so long as the left, the real left, remains paralyzed. So what do we do, go on with our liberal pooh poohing of the establishment and whoring with whatever opposition comes to hand?
True, as we can trust fascism to turn out a fairly regular stream of atrocities, issues will arise that will require response. True we must be attentive to the cause of workers moreso as their official leadership is by and large treacherous or reformist.
What we must not do is to get mired in a static liberal creed. The situation requires that we pay close attention to the present condition of matter in motion and its extreme implications. Liberal clichés vaporize as we are really locked in intimate material entanglement with the fascist beast.
It may require that we stare into the abyss and be prepared to work within this fascist framework. Or it may require no immediate tactical change from apparently championing liberal reformist issues and hoping something gives. But let us be clear that the strategic game is changing dramatically.
The left may be pathetically feeble in this country but globally the capitalist system is in the throes of deep crisis. The barbarians have crashed the gates and are occupying the city’s central square.
We can expect both globally and in our own space the dialectical confrontation to grow increasingly stark and we will be required to have a movement within the next decade that is truly capable of taking control.
It is thus time that we start building such a serious movement. Or else you will have to be content with merely throwing stones at the best fascism we can get.