“The necessity of acknowledging a fact or goal never follows from its pure existence; rather, acknowledgement occurs only when knowledge has freely determined the fact or goal is in accordance with reason” — Herbert Marcuse. It is always a minor incident that sparks mayhem. From the French Revolution to the Bolshevik one, and from the upsurge of the so-called Arab Spring in Tunisia to the grotesque, grubby and now grisly situation of Pakistan, what appeared to be triggered by a single incident, in the wink of an eye engulfed every nook and cranny of the state. History bears testimony to the fact that a simmering cauldron requires a single spark to turn itself into a volcano. In the end, those unfamiliar with the spontaneity of the masses are always left lamenting their sagacity and perspicacity in disgrace. Leaving this spontaneity aside, consciousness remains the privilege of those who, despite being alienated from their objectified labour, have not lost sight of their real enemy. It is the class comprised of the wretched of the earth that simultaneously is the creator of all wealth. This is the only class that alone, through its productivity, deprives ‘utopia’ of its apparently unreal content and is capable of exposing and dislodging the forces that hamper its realisation. But has the working class set foot in this war of attrition fought in the battlefield of Pakistan? Probably not! Regardless of the outcome, it is imperative to evaluate the class configuration of those involved in this pitched battle that has paralysed the state for the last couple of weeks. Let us take a clue from Gramsci, one of the greatest theorists of our time. He says, “At a certain point in their historical lives, social classes become detached from their traditional parties. This means that traditional parties in that particular organisational form, with the particular men who lead them, are no more accepted as the representatives of their class. This conflict reverberates from the terrain of the parties.” Gramsci adds, “The immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous because the field is open for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic ‘men of destiny’.” Hence, the situation paves the way for the emergence of a Caesar. While analysing the dynamics of this situation, Gramsci states: “Caesarism can be said to express a situation in which the forces in conflict balance each other in a catastrophic manner; that is to say, they balance each other in such a way that a continuation of the conflict can only terminate in their reciprocal destruction. To avoid the violent solutions, a great personality is entrusted with the task of ‘arbitration’ over a historico-political situation.” Hitler and Mussolini were typical examples of this phenomenon. In Germany, when Soviet-backed lame duck communists found themselves scared of the prospect of revolution, the void was filled by political fascism/Caesarism that, till then, only had a marginal presence. Capitalist recession strove to look for messiahs. Before these two characters could find big capital, capital found them. “The idea of the charismatic, authoritarian leader,” says Marcuse, “is already performed in the liberalist celebration of the gifted economic leader, the born executive.” Political fascism invariably proves suitable and handy for industrialised states where the devastated middle class is prepared to latch on to this panacea. In the absence of any other alternative, it has the tendency to embrace all strata of life, and hence is prone to become a cross-class phenomenon. “Passive resistance”, “war of manoeuvre” as Gramsci states, may turn into “active resistance” or “war of position”. To prosper, fascism needs a few other important conditions as well, including the dominant role of big capital and the subservience of state organs such as the army and police to the hegemony of the former. The role of state institutions, especially the army, cannot be underestimated. The army, as a guardian of the interests of the state, certainly cannot be debarred from participating in politics. While lurking in the background, it comes into the limelight only when the status quo is seriously threatened. According to Gramsci, Caesarism possesses a quantitative/qualitative character. It can be progressive or reactionary in nature. Keeping Gramsi’s perspective in view, let us examine the fascist phenomenon. In the case of either Hitler or Mussolini, the system, instead of undergoing any change, kept crawling on the same broken lines. Hence, as suggested by Gramsci, no qualitative change could be brought about. As the process of destruction reached its acme, big capital decided to dispose of both of these Caesars. In a coup d’état, Mussolini was sent packing while a year later Hitler barely survived a similar fate. For big capital, the purpose of the war was achieved. Overpopulation had been sorted out by large-scale massacre while future prospects of reconstruction laid the foundation for the realisation of capital. (To be continued) The writer is based in Australia and has authored books on socialism and history. He can be reached at saulatnagi@hotmail.com. He blogs at saulatnagi.com