The structural inability of the militaristic models of domination to manage the inevitable differences that arise in a plural society means that their discourse cannot go beyond the basic level of dichotomous divisions. Given its inability to understand the grayish complexity that characterizes social reality, militarism bases its entire argument on a dualistic reductionism that simplifies the world into good guys and bad guys, patriots and traitors, obedient and rebels, mine and those against me.
Derived from that same incapacity, militarism likes to hide its argumentative indigence resorting with undesirable frequency to insult and personal disqualification. By insulting, he deceptively feels that he is exonerated from arguing and reasoning, for which he obviously knows he is at a disadvantage. That is why militarists are sadly known in their relationship with others for their propensity for offense, provocation and derision.
In Venezuela, our ruling oligarchy has used for a long time, in its repertoire of insults, the adjective “fascist”, to foist it indiscriminately on those who are not submissive. It matters little if most of those who use it as a discursive fetish know what it means. “Fascist” sounds ugly, it tastes like an insult, and that’s enough. At the end of the day, the objective is to offend, and for that any word that sounds repulsive and disgusting will do.
What is interesting and at the same time ironic about all this is that our official bureaucrats are usually so ignorant that if they knew what fascism really is, they would know that they are today in the world some of its best and most genuine representatives.
As a quick reminder, let’s do a low flight over some of the most salient characteristics of fascism as a politico-social model of dominance. For example, fascism recognizes people’s rights only when they do not conflict with the needs of the state (and are therefore always inferior and subservient to the latter). And since in these models the State is the same as the ruling party, the “needs of the State” translate in practice into the interests and conveniences of the official clique. When in fascism the political class in power speaks of the “interests of the State”, what they are really talking about is their own personal interests, be they economic or domination.
Fascism also maintains a quasi-phallic idolatry of the figure of weapons, as a source and synonym of power; it seeks the constant exacerbation of social inequalities for political purposes (and, therefore, its interest is reduced to maintaining them but not resolving them); sells a fanciful comparison of the leader -presented as supreme, unique and almost superhuman- with the ancestral heroes of the country; assumes that the life of the country is subsumed in the State; shows an unconcealed contempt for intermediation mechanisms and citizen institutions, to defend a vertical leader-army-people model; abounds in discursive references to blood, sacrifice and death; it pursues a constant exaltation and mobilization of the masses through the manipulation of individual or collective frustration; it reduces the social complexity of problems and conflicts to the identification of an enemy (another country, political opponents, imperialism); suffers from a chronic obsession with plotting and the threat of enemies; and advocates the idealization of violence as a form of political control. As you have surely noticed, any resemblance of the above characteristics to the model professed by the current Venezuelan government is not coincidental.
To top off the similarities, madurismo maintains and feeds one of the most distinctive and defining features of fascism, such as the use of torture and the systematic violation of human rights, as evidenced by irrefutable evidence in the recent Third Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission in its analysis of Venezuela.
But not only that, but given the decision of the UN Human Rights Council, approved by a majority, to extend for two more years the mandate of the Independent International Mission of Experts in charge of studying the systematic violations of the human rights of Venezuelans by the repressive forces of the government, the expected response of the latter was to appeal to the typical fascist clichés. From the tired thesis of the “media scoundrel” to the eternal thesis of the international conspiracy “that tries to alter the peace of the nation in order to destabilize Venezuelan democracy”, according to the decadent statement of the Creole Foreign Ministry, the arguments of the Venezuelan government are typical of the narrative manual of fascism.
It is worth remembering that the objective of the UN Technical Fact-Finding Mission is to independently verify that the Venezuelan State complies with its primary responsibility to protect, respect and fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens and to comply with the obligations imposed by the human rights treaties and agreements to which they are party. This obligation is the main and priority responsibility of all States, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant international instruments in the area of protection of persons.
Well, the Maduro regime has rejected this healthy resolution that cannot be feared by any government on the planet (unless it has a lot to hide) alleging that such a verification of whether the human rights of the population are respected in our country is a ” interference in their internal affairs”, as if sovereignty could be used at will and as a plot fetish to hide murders, extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment such as those committed daily today in Venezuela, and that have led the UN itself to recognize that such crimes are part of a coordinated pattern with the high authorities of the Maduro government and constitute a systematic policy of the Venezuelan State. From his fascist conviction, for the madurista political class, the rights of people can never be a priority. The priority is to argue a supposed defense of the sovereignty of the State (which, again, is understood as the defense of its economic privileges and its appetite for power), even if this is done at the expense of the most basic human rights. There is nothing more fascist than this.
“Fascist” is not a good word. Definitely. But used as a label for others in the mouth of its indisputable representatives, it is nothing more than vulgar sarcasm. As ironic as repressing in the name of peace, or torturing others out of love for others.
A final reflection, directed especially to the compatriots who still militate on the sidewalk of official affection: intelligent people observe behaviors, not labels. One of the differences between people with a primitive political mentality and others with a modern reasoning is that the former remain discussing the typological formulas or the ideological self-definition of their rulers, while the latter observe their concrete performance. The latter are set and decided based on the actions of the government in power, while the former cannot overcome the childhood addiction to official speeches and verbiage. Therefore, if a government tortures and violates human rights as a State policy, neither its self-labels nor its justifications matter: it has already lost the moral foundation on which its legitimacy rests.
Beyond ideological differences or political beliefs, what unites us as a human race is the primacy of the person and the sacred respect for their rights, no matter who they are. That is the criterion that in the individual differentiates a person from an animal, and the one that in the political field defines whether or not a regime is morally justifiable.
@angeloropeza182
