Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 24, 2013 Letters
Dear Editor,
In two consecutive letters in the KN (Thursday and Friday), my friend (friends must be prepared to disagree) asked me to explain what I meant by the following statement; “Engagement with your enemy is a strategic concept – more strategic than conceptual.” For readers who don’t know the background, the opinion was coined in support of Elton Mc Rae’s criticism of the TUC’s recent dialogue with the PPP regime’s second level leadership. I supported Elton’s position then. I still do. In his two letters on me, Lincoln, even in a paragraph, didn’t tell the labour movement, Guyanese stakeholders and the Guyanese people what the TUC hoped to achieve by engaging in talks with the second tier leadership of the PPP Government (Sam Hinds and Brassington etc). I can answer that. Absolutely nothing!
In both letters, he went on to repeat himself in his assertion that enemies must talk. Before I explain what he wants me to, let me say there is no book, statement or anything in history that says enemies must talk. Enemies talk not because there is a concept called dialogue. They engage each other out of a strategic thinking. For this reason I say that dialogue is more of a strategic position than a rule to be adhered to
Now what do I mean by “more strategic than conceptual”? I would like to think that in his long union career, Lincoln must have read the works of one of the most brilliant minds to come out of philosophy – the Italian thinker, Antonio Gramsci. People who fight against tyrannical governments owe a lifelong debt to Gramsci. Whereas Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Sartre and other active philosophers wrote about the need for change, Gramsci remains the only first class philosopher who drafted a strategy for confronting and removing fascist regimes. I would not include Machiavelli in this category because he wrote in support of tyrants
A paramount method in Gramsci’s ensemble of strategies is the War of Manoeuvre and the War of Position. The two are dialectically connected. It is outside a short letter to expand. War of Manoeuvre is the stage where the regime reaches the point of fascism and there is no alternative but to organize for its removal. But according to Gramsci, the situation has to be analyzed by sympathetic intellectuals who must help in building the War of Position. This is the organization of civil society to produce a cultural counter-hegemony. Essentially, the War of Position rejected recognition of the regime, ignores engagement with them and prepares civil society for the War of Manoeuvre
For me, Guyana has reached the stage of the War of Manoeuvre. The role of people like Lincoln is to move towards the War of Position, not the battle of wits around a table. Now how do we know that we have reached the War of Manoeuvre? There is no greater authority than Lincoln Lewis himself who in his two consecutive missives on me have documented the irredeemable behaviour of a twenty one year old regime, which, if you used the arguments of the great Gramsci, has reached a level where dialogue will not produce changes. May I remind Lewis that in 2005 January, I first used the term “fascistization” to describe the deterioration of the PPP Government
Lincoln is my friend. We share many memories of struggle together but I hope he reads what he writes. Here is a trade unionist that goes way back to twenty years ago and describes the depravities of a government which ten years ago he accused of committing economic genocide against its own citizens. But in 2013 is sitting around the table talking not to autocrats themselves who have the power but to their underlings. This same Lincoln Lewis then tells me and Elton McRae that there is a concept called talking and even enemies talk. Lincoln, please read the history books and you will see talks only make sense when the autocracy is still redeemable. You have Gramsci to guide you
I don’t want to make this letter too long since Lincoln will come back and I will reply. Suffice it to say that I am glad he finds that Raymond Gaskin has a fine mind. But sometimes we can put a fine mind to terrible use. Gaskin’s fine mind is also a convenient mind. He takes a consultancy from the government to audit the books of City Council and he finds financial skullduggery. African bureaucrats will be charged. But the same Gaskin didn’t ask why the City Council and not NICIL or the Ministry of Human Services where Christopher Ram is contending that the amount of persons receiving old age does not gel with the census.
In Lincoln’s presence Ram repeated that in April last year at the TUC symposium on the 2012 budget. Is a fine mind being used to persecute and prosecute African Guyanese bureaucrats? Finally, why should I ask Jagdeo or Corbin about their relationship. I am asking you, Lincoln Lewis. Don’t you have an opinion on what goes on in your country, Lincoln? Ask me anything Lincoln and I will not back down in answering
Frederick Kissoon
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]