Thursday, June 22, 2006

Tanga at istupidong Mayor

Muli na namang nanawagan kamakalawa ang Ligaw (Liga ng) na mga Mayor sa Pilipinas (LMP), ULAP at Singaw ng Bayan na pulbusin na sa lalong madaling panahon ang Senado, i-set up na ang “lehislaturang unicameral” o ang sistemang parliament at ganap na isulong na ang kaunlarang pang-ekonomya. Bunsod ito ng pagkakabutata ng Senado sa P65.0 bilyong karagdagang pondo sa LGUs at kabahi nito sa Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) na P15.0 bilyon.

Ayon sa pamunuan ng LMP, “ang reenacted budget ay kahulugan ng kawalang oportunidad sa pag-unlad, empleyo, kawalan ng karagdagang kita at breakdown kuno ng maayos na delivery of basic services.” Pinagkaitan daw sila ng Senado sa biyayang nararapat sa kanila.

Una sa lahat, kaya ba nilang banggain ang Senado? Naiintindihan ba nila ang esensya't kahulugan ng sistemang parliament, hindi yung bersyon ni Ate Glo, Tainga at ni Tabako (layong pagtakpan lamang ang hello garci kontrobersi, illigitimacy, lying, cheating at manatili sa poder hanggang 2013)? Alam ba nila na ang ilang sangkap ng sistemang parliament ay strong state, strong political party, strong party-list system, walang padri-padrino at higit sa lahat walang 4 Gs (guns, gold, goons and girls)?

Isang sistema na kung saan ang mga Miembro ng Parliament (MP) at lokal na ehekutibo ay nagbibisekleta't pangkaraniwang mamamayan lamang. Nasapol kaya nila kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng unicameral legislature? Tanggap na ba nila na “na ang mali ay ang sistemang politika at hindi ang pulitiko? Na pati ang lokal na paggugubyerno ay sa bandang huli ay maaaring maging party-list at pagbasihan?

Pangalawa, ang P65.0 bilyon ba ay bahagi ng pangakong ayudang diretso sa bulsa sa lokal mula sa Malakanyang bilang kapalit sa patuloy na suporta't pagiging burikak nito. Sinong gago ang maniniwalang gagamitin sa livelihood-employment at delivery of basic services ang P15.0 pondong IRA sa lokal? Ang Kasal Binyag at Libing-KBL lamang ang alam nitong atupagin. Magagaling lamg ito pangungumisyon (30%), panunuhol, pananakot at pamimili ng boto (vote buying). Alam ng taga-baryo na ikinukubli lamang ng mga Mayor at Gobernador sa mga proyektong inprastraktura ang pangungurakot.

Atat na atat na ang mga LMP na masunggaban, laklakin na ang pondong sinawata ng Senado. Ang bilyong kwarta ay pa-pogi points sa kani-kanilang constituencies na pinagkakautangan nila nung nakarang election. Tulad ni GMA, malaki pa ang bayaring utang ni Mayor at ni Gobernador sa kani-kanilang ward leader, sa mga mayordomo ng malalaking angkan, sa mga teacher, sa mga lider ng kabataan at sa buong makinaryang nagamit nito nung nakaraang 2001 election. “Wag n'yo nga kaming pinagloloko, PERA-PERA lang kayo!

Sino ang dapat sisihin sa pagkakasawata ng inyong pondo? Hindi ang Senado kundi ang mga sari-sarili n'yo! Masyado kayong partisano, garapal at nangba-baboy! Bugbug sarado na kayo, bumalandra na sa Tongreso (kulang ng 5-10 pirma para maabot ang 195 signature) ang cha cha, niyurak-yurakan na, nilait-lait na, inilibing na ng buhay ng taumbayan, ng Simbahan, ng media at ng Senado, sige pa rin kayo ng sige.

Una, kahit ipagpilitan ng LMP, Sigaw ng Bayan at ULAP na naabot na ang sapat na bilang (9 milyon) para sa PIG (pipol Initiative ni Gloria), baliwala pa rin ito, dahil sa simpleng TRO (temporary restraining order) sa ilang lokal na Comelec, itatapon na sa basurahan ang PIG.

Pangalawa, sumablay lang ito ng isang beses sa krayteriang tatlong porsiento (3%) pirma sa kada distrito, tapos na ang kaligayahan ng PIG! Alam ng country na malawakang sinapote at minanipula ang prosesong pagpapapirma. Hindi lahat ng distrito (Appari hanggang Jolo) ay hawak sa leeg ng Lakas-NUCD at Malakanyang. Nandiyan ang San Juan, Makati, Gen San, Capiz, Cebu at ilang distrito sa Bicol, Northern Luzon at Mindanao na maagang nagdeklarang all out war versus Cha Cha.

Pangatlo, dadagukan ito ng Korte Suprema sa kadahilanang may magkaparehong disisyon na ang SC nung 1997 na hindi pahihintulutan, hindi kilalanin at itatapon sa kangkungan ng Comelec ang PIG.

Pang-apat, kung sakaling malusutan pa rin ng (dahil sa makinarya at resources) administrasyong Arroyo ang tatlong nabanggit, may legal problem pa rin itong kakaharapin, ang isyu kung ito'y Revision or amendments?

Kaya't kung nanaginip ng gising at umaasa pa si Ramon Guico, presidente ng LMP at si Raul Lambino ng Sigaw ng Bayan na gugulong pa ang train sa daang bakal (PIG), may lagnat sa utak ito! Sa totoo lang, dead on arrival na ang Peolple's Initiative at nangnganib katayin ang Constitutional Assembly (Con Ashole) sa Tongreso.

Ang tanging paraan na lamang ng Malakanyang ay muling maghunyango, magtambling at biglang magdoble-kara, bumaligtad sa paraang Constitutional Commission (Con Con). Kung sabagay, consistent si Ate Glo sa pagsisirko.

Kailan pa kaya titino ang ating mga Mayor at Gobernador? Tulad na lamang sa isang kaso sa Sorsogon kung saan nanganganib mapinsalang idudulot ng pagpautuk ng bulkan, imbis na atupagin ang mamamayan, aba'y ang inuuna ng Gov Lee ay ang visibility sa 2007, ang pamumulitika (inaaway ang Philvocs). Ang iba'y nambla-black mail at nananawagang idedeklara ang Mindanao Republic,Ilocoslovakian Republic at may Weteng Republic.

Paano nito makukumbinsi, mapapa-impres, mapapabilib ang Senado kung patuloy na namamayagpag ang “weteng lord, prostitution lord at drug lord sa mga sinasakupan nitong mga lugar? Pagkakamot lang ng bayag ang alam nito. Paano nito mapapaniwala ang Senado kung masyadong garapal kayong nagpapagamit sa Palasyo, kay Ronaldo Puno at kay Lambino.

Susuportahan lamang kayo ng taumbayan sa inyong panawagang “unicameral legislature/ parliament at pag-aabolished sa Senado,” kung uunahin n'yo munang i-abolished ang Office of the President, si Ate Glo, ang ilihitimong halal na presidente. Nasa likod n'yo ang country kung kasunod n'yong ia-abolished ang pamunuan ng Comelec, PNP, AFP, DOJ, National Security adviser Norberto Gonzales, ang Tongreso, DILG Ronaldo Puno at kayo mismo, ang inyong mga sarili!

Kung magagawa yan, diyan lamang mapapatunayang may representative democracy at people empowerment sa country. Diyan lamang mapatutunayang hindi kayo binabata-bata't hindi kayo TRAPO. Nagsakripisyo na kayo, may iniwan pa kayong LEGACY at taas noo pa kayong ipagmamalaki ng inyong anak, pamilya, mahal sa buhay at inyong nasasakupan. Una na naming sinasabing mga bayani kayo at walang dahilan upang kayo'y hindi naming ipagpatayo ng rebulto sa plaza. Diyan pa lang mapatutunayang naglingkod nga kayo diyos at sa country.


Doy Cinco / IPD
June 22, 2006

(Ano ang ipinakikita aral, hamon o katanungan dito? Sa kabila ng pagsasabatas ng Local Government Code may dalawampung taon na ang nakalipas, parang walang nababagong kalakaran politikal sa baba. Kung ano ang larawan sa pambansa, nagrereplek din ito sa lokal-baba. Trapo at elitist pa rin ang namamayagpag na mainstream local politics. Nakabaon ng malalim ang patronage politics at dependency sa Manila imperialism.
Wasto pa rin bang isiping na ang panawagang repormang politikal sa lokal-baba ay mas mauuna kaysa sa nasyunal-pambansa o baligtad? Panahon na bang dapat tutukan ang pagtatayo ng komunidad kaysa sa gawaing paggugubyerno't sektoral?)

Monday, June 19, 2006

Sino nga ba ang tunay na terorista at destabilizer?

Bali-balita ang sunud-sunud na pagpapasabog ng grupong nagpakilalang Taong Bayan at Kawal o TABAK. Bagamat itinanggi, ang malinaw, naisagawa ito sa gitna ng mahigpit na siguridad sa Kalakhang Maynila, ang namimintong paglagapak ng cha-cha, ang nalalapit na ikalawang salang na impeachment complaint sa Tongreso at ang tayming sa humuhupang kilos protesta at tipong ang karamihan ay nasa electoral mode na sa 2007 election. Maraming nag-akala ng kung anu-ano, maraming nagulantang, nanggalaite, nanghula at marami ang nagpatay malisya.

Unang napuruhan ang gusali ng Great Pacific Life sa Makati nung June 6, ang nanggoyo ng libu-libong pre-need planholder. Kaututang-dila ni Ate Glo ang pamilya ng mga Yuchenco. Itinaon sa ika-unang taong anibersaryo ng Hello Garci kontrobersi (ang isyu ng cheating, lying). Hindi maikakailang kakambal ito ng isyu ng pagiging ilehitimo ng gubyernong GMA.

Sumunud na sinampulan ang bahay ng weteng lord na si Bong Pineda ng Lubao, Pampanga. Kilabot ng Central Luzon si Bong Pineda at alam ng buong mundo ang ginampanan papel nito sa special operation sa Mindanao, 2004 Presidential Election. Bukud sa mag-kumare't kumpare, malapit sa isa't-isa ang pamilyang Pineda at Macapagal. Pangatlo; ang Satellite police station sa QC.

Pang- apat; ang Police Community Precint sa Manila nung June 11 at ang Panghuli, ang SWAT van sa police headquarter ng Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig. Dito nakatalaga ang elite force ng PNP. Kung sino man ang may kagagawan nito, aba'y dalawa lang ang masasabi ko; una, parang magpapasalamat ang country dito at ikalawa, isang babala ito sa mga taong magpapagamit sa tiwaling pangulo at nanloloko sa mamamayan.

Ayon sa ilang nagsusuri, malinaw na nakapatungkol ang huling dalawang
pagsabog sa pagmumuka ng Philippine National Police (PNP). Parang naningil, naghamon, nag-intriga at nangutyang hindi pipitsugin ang grupo. Sa katunayan, ipinakita nito ng buong husay sa gawaing paniniktik at kalkuladong pagkilos.

Hindi maisasaisang-tabi na posibleng “insider (PNP)” ang may kagagawan ng pagpapsabog, kaya naman kagyat na tinanggal sa pwesto ang dalawang mataas na opisyal (officer in-charge) ng Camp Bagong Diwa. "May suspetsang ang Malakanyang mismo ang siyang may pasimuno. Maaring karugtong ito ng sunud- sunud na serye ng political killings (200+) na ang “tanging may kakayahan at makikinabang ay si Ate Glo," mariing diin ng ilang oposisyon.

"Tukoy" na raw ng awtoridad ang grupo. Hindi raw grupong JI, Abu Sayaff, CPP- NPA, hindi raw terorista at long hindi mga criminal elements (gambling, drug, prostitution LORD). Maaring magkakaugnay at may mensaheng gustong ipaabot ang Tabak. Kung ano mang grupo man ito, ang malinaw natataranta, nababahala, kinakabahan at kahit paano'y naprapraning (paranoid) ang bahay palasyo ng Malakanyang.

Sapagkat mahinang klaseng bomba, "pillbox at firecracker" o pipitsuging pampasabog lamang ang pinaputuk. Ginamitan daw ito ng TNT (trinitroluene), isang tipo ng high explosive device na maaaring doblehin ng ilang ulit ang lakas. Idinagdag pa nitong "walang pakay na mamurwisyo, manakit, pumatay o manira ng ari-arian. Intensyon lamang daw nito ang maghasik ng kaguluhan, takot at alarmin ang buong bansa." Isang "terrorist act at destabilizer" na naglalayong pabagsakin ang pamahalaang GMA ang magkaparehong reaksyon ni Pres'l chief of staff ninyo Mike Defensor at ni Vidal Querol ng NCRPO.

Dagdag pa ng huli, "Maling-mali raw ang pamamaraang gamit, hindi raw nito makukuha ang simpatya ng mamamayang Pinoy." Sabihin man nating tama si Mike Defensor at si Vidal Querol sa kanilang pagsusuri, dahil sa totoo lang, ang Malakanyang ang siya ngayong "nananalo" sa propaganda war sa politika. Kaya lang, 'di sila nakasisiguro na wala ngang sumisimpatya sa grupong Tabak at lalong may isang libong beses na maling sabihing "makakabig nila ang simpatya ng country?"

Sabihin na nating mga "terorista o mga bayani" ang utak ng pagpapasabog, tama man o mali, karapatan nito na ipagtanggol ang kani-kanilang sarili at posibleng paniniwalang paglilingkod sa masang Pinoy. Anong tamang pamamaraan ba Querol, Mike Defensor ang dapat gamitin ng naghahangad ng pagbabago, ng kilusang mamamayan? Mag-prayer rally, magpipol power at tangkiliking ang balota at antabayanan ang 2007 election maski, inaamag at buluk ang Comelec at sistemang election?

Isinara ninyo ang lahat ng pamamaraan, legal means, legal-constitutional avenue, ang rally at demonstrasyon. Sinupil at pinasista ninyo ang lehitimong karaingan ng demokratikong kilusan. Kung ganito ang kalakaran at hindi parehas ang pampulitikang labanan (playing fields), walang dahilan upang hindi humantong hanggang "extra-constitutional" (pol-mil) ang pakikibakang masa.

Kung kaya't sa sa totoo lang, ang Malakanyang ang dapat sisihin ng lahat, ang fertilizer, ang kanal na pinagbubuhatan ng lamok, ang nagtulak, nag-udyok at rekruter ng rebelyon at insureksyon. Sino ngayon ang nagpapalkas sa destabilization at terorismo? Wala ng iba kundi si Ate Glo, ang mga galamay nitong si Querol, Mike Defensor, Raul Gonzales, Palparan, Ronaldo Puno at higit sa lahat si Norberto Gonzales!

Nataguriang berdugo ng Malakanyang si Querol at Lumibao ng PNP (Palo Ng Palo). Gamit ang batas ng diktadurang Marcos, muling binuhay nito ang; "wala kayong permit, Illegal Assembly kayo, mga bayaran kayo, nakakapurwisyo kayo sa tao, mga pekeng pipol power kayo, masyado kayong magugulo, sinasabotahe n'yo ang paglakas ng ekonomya!" Kayo ang pasimuno ng madudugung dispersal operation, warrantless arrest at panunupil sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag. Saan ngayon babaling ang ilang pwersang anti-GMA, kung ito nga'y mga pwersang anti-GMA?

Sino ang may pakana ng 1017 (national state of emergency), sino ang utak ng Calibrated Pre-emptive response (CPR), 464, BP 870, sino ang nang-baboy sa political at democratic institution ng bansa, 'di ba Comelec, AFP-PNP, Tongreso, Lokal na Gubyerno (LGUs) at Umbudsman- Tuwadbayan?

Sino ang nagtaguyud ng patakarang pambabansot/productivity ng mga manggagawa at patuloy na pagtaas ng unemployment rate at prostitusyon? Sino ang utak ng patakarang pagluluwas ng aliping pinoy (skilled workers-OFW), Japayuki, nurses at iba pang propesyunal kapalit ang dolyares, pagwasak ng pamilyang Pilipino, brain drain at kakapusan ng propesyunal ng bansa?

Sino ang sumalaula sa mga institusyon ng country? Sino ang nagpabaya sa patuloy na pagtaas ng langis at pangunahing bilihin? Sino ang lumadlad (burikak) at nagpagamit sa GATT-WTO? Sino ang may kagawan sa patakarang patuloy na bayaran ang 'di napakinabangang bilyun-bilyung dolares na utang panlabas at transaksyong soveriegn guarantee? Sino ang pangunahing salarin sa taunang pangungurakot ng mahigit 40% taunang budget ng bansa, sa fertilizer scam, Jose Pidal, Fiatco, Macapagal highway, signature campaign (PIG) at pork barrel?

Hindi siguro ulyanin si Querol at si Lumabao sa track record ng Kapulisan. Sagad hanggang butong ang kawalang pagtitiwala at pagrespeto ng mamamayang Pinoy sa Kapulisan (SWS-Pulse Asia survey). Hindi pa ito nakakabawi sa negatibong credibility? Sino ang utak ng pamamaslang (salvaging), proteksyong raket sa jueteng lord, gambling lord, prostitution lord, drug lord, smuggling lord at kriminalidad (carnapping, carjacking at kotong cops)?

Magpapatuloy ang panunupil sa ilalim ng gubyernong Arroyo. Magpapatuloy ang political killings at harrashment sa ilang lider ng kilusang demokratiko. Pinagyabang pa nitong magugupo niya ang CPP-NPA sa loob ng tatlong taon (3 years-ito ang maling estratehiya). Tumigil na nga kayo sa pagpoproganda, simpleng classroom lang, simpleng traffic lang di maresolba, ang grupong Magdalo hindi masawata, pagbibilang lang ng boto ay hirap na, CPP-NPA pa?

Mas malapit-lapit paniwalaang si Ate Glo at ang pakulo nitong Cha Cha ang siyang gaganansya ng pagpapasabog. Maaring ring sabihing kakambal sa agenda ang matagal ng inaasam-asam nitong pagdedeklara ng State of Emergency, pagsasabatas ng anti-terrorismo at muling katayin ang impeachment complaint.

Tukoy na raw kung sino ang nagpapasabog. Sa susunod na mga araw, Linggo, aasahang may mahuhuli't ihaharap sa media ang PNP at ipopropagandang (set-up man, planted man o mga peke) pilay na, nabulabog na at stabilized na ang buong country?

Nagmamatyag ang mamamayan sa anumang posibleng kahinatnang ng patuloy na lumalalang krisis pulitika. Bagamat walang pinapanigan, mayorya sa kanila ang sawang-sawa na sa pamumulitika ng kasalukuyang rehimen. Kung sino man ang grupong may pasimuno nito, kung ito nga'y political statement (babala sa mga berdugo't pasista) at kung ito nga'y may mga kasunod pang pagkilos bago at matapos ang SONA, mungkahi lang na sana'y walang (dadanak na dugo-colateral damage-ni siraulong Gonzales?) sibilyan o walang kamuang-muang ang mapipinsala't walang ari-arian ng mamamayan ang mapeperwisyo.

Kung ito nga'y bahagi ng kabuuang iskimang pabagsakin ang ilihitimong namamahay sa bahay-palasyo, mahalagang maipaliwanag ito sa mamamayan (tit-for-tat propaganda). Pag-aralan, suriin, paganahin ang imahinasyon, timbangin at pagnilay-nilayan ang negatibo't positibong mga pagkilos.

Ito ba'y may ambisyon o kahalintulad ng Irish Republican Army (IRA) na tumabla sa pagmamalupit ng gubyernong Britanya sa Ireland o ito ba'y kahalintulad ng Light a Fire Movement nung panahon ng Diktadurang Marcos, may dalawampung taon na ang nakalilipas? Kung sino man ang may pakana ng pagpapasabog, sino rin ang tunay na terorista at destilizer ng bansa?


Doy Cinco / IPD staff
Social Movement Team
June 20, 2006

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Structural Analysis & Ideology

Draft—Long Version


Structural Analysis & Ideology
-Vincent Gueco

Part I: Structural Analysis and Political Economy

The concept “structural analysis” came into vogue in the Philippine academic scene during the seventies. It asserts that political and cultural changes can be analyzed by rooting them out in embedded economic structures, and that these changes impacts directly on the said economic structures.

Human activities in the substructures determine human relations in the superstructure; political and cultural activities in the superstructure changes human economic relations in the substructure.

Tightly knit with structural analysis is structuralism.

Structuralism is a general approach in various academic disciplines that explores the inter-relationships between fundamental elements of some kind, upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, cultural etc "structures" are built, through which then meaning is produced within a particular person, system, culture.

Structuralism appeared in academic psychology for the first time in the 19th century and then reappeared in the second half of the 20th century, when it grew to become one of the most popular approaches in the academic fields that are concerned with analyzing language, culture, and society.

In revolutionary political practice, structural analysis is synonymous with Marxist political economy. Political economy was the original term for the study of production, the acts of buying and selling, and their relationships to laws, customs and government. It developed in 18th century as the study of the economies of states (also known as polities, hence the word "political" in "political economy").

In contradistinction to the theory of the physiocrats, in which land was seen as the source of all wealth, political economists proposed the labour theory of value (first introduced by John Locke, developed by David Ricardo, Adam Smith and later Karl Marx), according to which labor is the real source of value.

In Marxism, the source of wealth are both labor and nature. Political economists also attracted attention to the accelerating development of technology, whose role in economic and social relationships grew ever more important.

Corollary to the labor theory of value is the “law of value”.

The “law of value” pervades all capitalist societies. It refers to a regulative principle of the economic exchange of the products of human labor power-- the relative exchange-values of those products in trade, usually expressed by money-prices, are generally determined by the average amounts of human labor-time socially necessary (e.g., minimum wage) to produce them. Thus, the exchange value of commodities is regulated by their value, where their value is a quantity of human labour.

The labor theory of value and the law of value are key economic concepts in the realm of social production and economic exchange. Karl Marx examined the way humans relate to each other in the realm of production and he posed the correlation of such vis-à-vis the realm of the “legal and and political superstructure” of society. His study on political economy is summarized in his Preface to his “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” written in 1859. He wrote:


The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844.

My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term "civil society"; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy.

The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarized as follows.

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.

The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.

Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.

No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society.

The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence — but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.


On the level of the superstructure, i.e. in the sphere of politics and culture, Marx concluded that the bourgeois state, being a system of class rule through “bourgeois democracy”, amounts to a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” In the same sense, when the workers take state power into their hands, they become the new ruling classes.

The workers, in other words, rule in their own interest, using the apparatuses of the courts, schools, prisons, and police in a manner required to prevent the bourgeoisie from regrouping and mounting a counterrevolution. Marx expected the victorious workers to be democratic and open in dealings with one another. Theirs is to be a dictatorship of and by, not over, the proletariat. On the one hand there is “democracy of and by the bourgeosie”; on the other, “democracy of and by the proletariat”

Based on Marx’s study of the Paris Commune (the socialist government from 18 March to 28 May 1871) and other French political upheavals during his time, after the proletariat would take state power, it will aim to eliminate the old social relations of production, and replace these relations by placing the means of production and state apparatus under proletariat control, thus paving the way for the abolition of class distinctions and a classless communist society.

He viewed the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as only an intermediate stage, believing that the need for the use of state power of the working class over its enemies would disappear once the classless society had emerged.

Over time, the proletariat more and more equates with humanity because the anarchy in capitalist production and market hurls the middle class and sections of the bourgeoisie into proletarian ranks.

As Marx summarized it his “Theses on Feuerbach”, 1845:

Thesis 10

The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.

Thesis 11

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

Mode of Production, Capitalist Crises and Revolution

A mode of production (meaning “the way of producing”) is a specific combination of:

1)productive forces: these include human labor-power, tools, equipment, buildings and technologies, materials, and improved land

1)social and technical relations of production: these include the property, power and control relations governing society's productive assets, often codified in law, cooperative work relations and forms of association, relations between people and the objects of their work, and the relations between social classes.

As examples, Marx described during his time certain modes of production such as : modern bourgeois or capitalist, feudal, ancient and Asiatic modes of production.

Productive forces, "productive powers" or "forces of production" refers to the combination of the means of production with human labor power. All those forces which are applied by people in the production process are encompassed by this concept, including those management and engineering functions technically indispensable for production (as contrasted with social control functions). Human knowledge can also be a productive force. Together with the social and technical relations of production, the productive forces constitute an historically specific mode of production.

The means of production are physical, non-human, inputs used in production. This includes factories, machines, tools and materials, along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital -- in other words, the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital or labor.


On labor-power, Marx wrote in Das Kapital: "By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description."

Relations of production refers to all kinds of social and technical human interconnections involved in the social production and reproduction of material life. As a social relation, relations of production equals property relations—i.e., class relations, such as capitalists-workers relation (or bourgeois-proletariat relations) in a capitalist mode of production.

The capitalist mode of production is capable of tremendous growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. The capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of production.

However, capitalism is prone to periodic crises. Over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse.

We see evidences of this in the capitalist crises of overproduction, over- accumulation of capital (e.g., collapse of “bubble economies” as in the Asian financial crisis of 1987), and the immizerization of the proletariat through scandalous poverty figures on a world scale. During such a crisis the price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy.

There are short-term or cyclical capitalist crises (so-called “boom and bust” business cycles or “recession” that last for some months), and there are secular or long-term capitalist crises, or “depression” that can last for years. Secular capitalist crises warn that the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production.

(For example, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). For Marx this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure is a major source of social disruption and conflict, such as the such as the Great Depression that struck the capitalist world from 1929 up to the 30s, and the subsequent inter-capitalist wars of World War II.

The cycle of growth, collapse, and growth would be punctuated by increasingly severe crises. Moreover, the long-term consequence of this process was necessarily the enrichment and empowerment of the capitalist class and the impoverishment of the proletariat. Were the proletariat to seize the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of production less vulnerable to periodic crises.

In general, a peaceful negotiation of this problem was impracticable, and that a revolution would in general be required, because the ruling class would not give up power on a silver platter. As Marx wrote in his "Critique of the Gotha Program", "between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.

Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat," that in practice means fighting it out for proletarian hegemony, and improving the lot of the working peoples and humanity.

The establishment of a socialist system as a political transition—or the articulation of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “democracy for the proletariat” on a temporary basis--means passing a period where the needs of the working-class, not of capital, will be the common deciding factor.

In actual practice, there are no hard and fast rules, no absolute models, in pushing for a socialist system, which is possible to build on a national, regional or even international scale.

Our concrete particularities in time and space defines the duration and extent by which socialism can be built. For example, there are socialist models in societies with advanced economies where the law of value freely operates; wealth, however, is redistributed via the state through a redistributive taxation system.

There are also models in countries keen on capital accumulation to hasten the development of their productive forces; the law of value or the the supply-and-demand market mechanism are allowed to operate in certain segement of the economy. Still, there are more rigid models where the state consciously stifles the law of value, regulates the market, and holds a tight grip on finance capital; in most of the actual cases, the productive forces become stunted, and bureaucratization animates public and political life.


Part II: State and Ideology

Friedrich Engels, Marx’s colleague, asserted that the State did not come from without, but arose out of society but placed itself above it, or as product of economic development that split society into classes. He wrote in his “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”:

"The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel.

But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state."

Furthermore:

"The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production.

They will fall as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into a museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."

The state is the thus the product of society’s split into antagonistic classes, an institution that seems to stand above the whole of society and has the power—as state power-- to check class antagonisms by way of ensuring the hegemony of the dominant class (i.e., the bourgeois or capitalist class, in the contemporary era). The state exercises hegemony both in the coercive and ideological way, i.e. by force plus consent.

What signals the state’s alienation from the rest of society is when the state produces ideology to hegemonize the rest of society. Nationhood, for instance, can produce reactionary ultra-nationalist ideologies; patriotism can be born out of national liberation struggles.

Spirituality can take on reactionary forms as in the Spanish colonization of the Philippines through the Roman Catholic Church. Monarchs and emperors can fool their subjects to believe that they are offsprings of gods on earth. Ideological hegemony succeeds once it becomes the dominant political culture.

Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxists developed the concept of hegemony into an acute analysis to explain why the “inevitable” socialist revolution predicted by orthodox Marxism had not occurred by the early 20th century.

Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the “common sense” values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which working peoples identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and thus helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting.

The working-class needed to develop a culture of its own—counter-hegemony--which would overthrow the notion that bourgeois values represented “natural” or “normal” values for society, and which would attract the oppressed and intellectual classes to the cause of the proletariat.

Gramsci maintained that that culture is not only “ancillary” to political objectives, but is fundamental that cultural hegemony is first achieved to the attainment of power. Any class that wishes to dominate in modern conditions has to move beyond its own narrow “economic-corporate” interests, has to exert intellectual and moral leadership, and has to make alliances and compromises with a variety of forces. Gramsci calls this union of social forces an “historical bloc” (a term taken from the syndicalist Georges Sorel).

For example, Gramsci stated that, in the West, bourgeois cultural values were tied to Christianity, and therefore much of his polemic against hegemonic culture is aimed at religious mores and values. He was impressed by the power Roman Catholicism had over men's minds and the care the Church had taken to prevent an excessive gap developing between the religion of the learned and that of the less educated.

Gramsci believed that it was Marxism's task to marry the purely intellectual critique of religion found in Renaissance humanism to the elements of the Reformation that had appealed to the masses. For Gramsci, Marxism could supersede religion only if it met people's spiritual needs, and to do so people would have to recognize it as an expression of their own experience.

Part III: Against Elite rule, Against Capitalism, Against Patriarchy

EDSA State Elite Democracy: A Neoloberal-Oligarchic Anti-Development State

Elite democracy’s acquiescence to neoliberalism, their fervent restoration of pre-Martial law oligarchy, and penchant for patrimonial plunder precisely makes it a neoliberal-oligarchic state.

Elite democracy is driven by the narrow interests of capitalists, feudal remnants and rent-seekers. Just like any other state, elite democracy is enforced through both coercive and cultural hegemony.

Ideological or cultural hegemony is practiced through the use of select laws, schools, newspapers, radio, television, old mores, language and other information media, including via other cultural institutions. Included in this category is the promotion of patriarchy as well as the belief that only the state has the sole and legitimate monopoly of the use of force. Ideological or cultural hegemony seeks to ingrain in the citizenry that the neoliberal and oligarchic set-up is “common sense”.

Hegemony through coercion requires the systematic employment of military and police powers to suppress dissent against neoliberalism and oligarchy. Other facets of state coercion include waging wars against insurgents, the prisons, and other institutions like the death sentence. Coercion is the state’s ultimate weapon against the section of the citizenry that is immune to the opium of ideological hegemony.

By oligarchy we mean a political arrangement wherein all or almost all of political power is effectively in the hands of a small fraction of the population. Patrimonial plunder is a constant end of oligarchy in our society. Oligarchs are usually the most powerfull, i.e., based on wealth, family, military strength, capacity for violence, or political influence.

The patronage system is the cultural veil by which oligarchic rule is implemented in our society. Cronyism, nepotism, patrimonialism, bureaucratism, bossism through the employ of “guns, gold and goons” are prime examples of the current patronage system besetting national and local politics.

Post-Marcos Philippine elite democracy is neoliberal due to the blind surrender of our economic and political policies to the whims neoliberal institutions and conservative interest groups, like the World Trade Organization, the paleoconservatives and neoconservatives in Washington, and the IMF-WB combine.

Globalization was born out of the capitalist technological revolution, which intensified even more trade and financial wars among the largest capitalist economies. The era of globalization has jeopardized the survival of economies with least technological capacities in production. These societies are concentrated most in Asia, Africa, Latin America and eastern Europe.

Neoliberalism in our society is highlighted by the incompetence and anti-development stance of our bourgeois oligarchs. Due to the “free market” dictum inherent in neoliberalism, Philippine oligarchs exhibit no decisiveness in developing the capacity of the state to directly engage in the development of our productive capacities, especially in key industries and agricultural enterprise.

It is no accident, therefore, why our economy is stunted, and various poverty indices all point to the prevalence of scandalous poverty in our society. In politics, elite democracy’s neoliberalism is demonstrated by all of the EDSA state regime’s dependence on the policies and international interest of the most powerful nations, chiefly the US.


Stunted Capitalism and Highly Inequitable Distribution of Wealth

Neoliberal-oligarchic rule have wrought havoc on our labor force and income distribution for more than two decades. Aside from encouraging labor outmigration, a seeming irreversible stratification can be observed in the anatomy of Philippine labor.

Employment survey by major industry group in 2006 presents a totally different landscape if compared to early 1970s data.

The common perception during the 1960s and early 1970s was that the peasantry comprise around 70% or more of the labor force, and non-farm workers (in industry) consists of around 15%.

Recent data released from the National Statistics Office (NSO) paint a following picture:

Total labor participation:………………………...32.4 million

Agriculture (including hunting and forestry):… 36.54%
Industry: ………………………………………… 15.08%
Service Sector: …………………………………..48.39%

The ratios above have nor changed much for more than five years. A cursory look at the data shows that:

1) the percentage of labor participation in industry remained stunted at around 15%.
2) participatioin in agriculture sharply fell to around one-third (1/3) of the labor force.
3) at nearly 50%, the service sector now dominates labor force participation.

In terms of industry output (see Tabel 2 below: Industry Output 1988 vis 1994), Industry dominated output in 1994 [no data yet for the year 2006]:

Agriculture (including hunting and forestry):… 14.4%
Industry: ……………………………………….… 47.0%
(Others) …………………………………………. 38.6%

While capitalist industries outpace other sectors in terms of output, the service sector appears to be catcing up. Stunted capitalism is also mirrored by the contant percentage of industrial workers (~ 15%) and the rise of the service sector.

Forty percent (40%) of the population live on less than US$2 per day. Data from the World Health Organization states that in 2003, about 3.97 million families were living below the poverty line, where the annual per capita poverty threshold reached P12 267 (US$ 220.64) in 2003, up by 7.1 percent compared with the 2000 level of P11 451 (US$ 205.96). The World Bank cites 30 percent of the population living below the poverty line.

Since 1985, the advent of the People Power revolt, inequities in income distribution kept on widening. The sharp class divisions in Philippine society can be gleaned from scandalous disparities in income distribution. According to the Asian Development Bank in its report, “Income Poverty and Inequality in the Philippines” (03/02/05):

The Philippines exhibits a highly inequitable distribution of income. Despite a very slight improvement in overall distribution since 1997, in 2003 the share of income accruing to the richest 10% of the population was still more than twenty times the share of income of the poorest 10%.

Since 1985 the richest quintile [fifth] of the population has consistently commanded more than 50% of total family income in the country, with the poorest quintile at less than 5% (see Table). Despite major fluctuations in economic performance during the period 1985–2003, income inequality while very high has remained relatively stable.

The overall income distribution trend from 1985 to 2003 shows a slight deterioration, with an increase in the Gini coefficient from 0.447 in 1985 to 0.466 in 2003. [The Gini coefficient measures inequality, where a coefficient of 0 represents perfect equality and 1.0 would be perfect inequality. The higher the coefficient the more unequal the distribution.]

However, this broad trend masks mild fluctuations over the years. The Gini was at its highest in 1997 (0.487) and has been on a very slight downward trend since that time. The decrease is minimal and should not be taken to be significant. Table [below] presents the percentage distribution of total family income, by income decile, for each FIES year (1985–2003).

When income distribution is highly unequal, as in the Philippines, there are many families at the bottom of said distribution. As a result, poverty measures become very sensitive to where the poverty line is placed, and small changes in the poverty threshold can result in large changes in the population identified as poor.

This was demonstrated above with the international poverty lines of $1 and $2 a day, but is also noticeable in the national poverty lines. The 2003 Methodology reduced the poverty line by P6 per person per day. This minimal change, less than $0.14 per person per day, resulted in a 5.3% reduction in the headcount of families in 2000, or a reduction in the number of poor people by 4.3 million.

Patriarchy as an Ideology of Elite Democracy

Of special interest in our employment of political-economy and cultural analysis and counter-cultural hegemony is patriarchy.

Patriarchy is asserted to be the basis on which most modern societies have been formed. It is the root of gender oppression as it institutionalizes power relations between the sexes. In a sense, it is also the basis of the first division of labor, i.e. between male and female, and the subsequent rise of various conflicting class relations.

In anthropological terms, patriarchy is a sociological condition where male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; with the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position.

In a more radical and pro-feminist sense, it is a relationship of dominance, or cultural hegemony, and it simultaneously intersects with different types of oppression such as class, and which may include, but are not limited to the following: gender, race, ethnicity, perceived attractiveness, sexuality, and ability.

The term patriarchy is also associated used in systems of ranking male leadership in certain hierarchical churches or religious bodies, stark examples of which are the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. Thus, patriarchy connotes a seemingly immobile and sclerotic political order.

In political-economy, thus, patriarchy is normally viewed as the ideological superstructure of feudalism or remnants of the feudal order. Feudalism is a social system based on personal ownership of resources and personal loyalty between a landowners(suzerain) and a peasant (vassal or subject), plus a hierarchical social structure ideologically buttressed by religion to reinforce the landlord-peasant production relations.

More radical feminists (like Emma Goldman) view patriarchy as the first manifestation of hierarchy in human history; thus, it precedes feudalism and is the first form of oppression that occurred in the dominance of male over female. This line of thinking concludes that if feminists are against patriarchy, they must also be against all forms of hierarchy, and therefore must reject the authoritarian nature of the state and capitalism.
#

Filipinos can not afford Activism

Filipinos can not afford Activism
Jamir Ocampo

Nowadays, activists are wondering why Filipinos are not getting out into the streets to protest against GMA despite the President's moral disgrace and the unforgiving social conditions of our country. Older activists are searching for answers to explain the lost activism that once ousted a dictator in the country.

Some claim that the present generation are more apathetic and hopeless while others look at them as being more selfish and individualistic. Partly they maybe true but I prefer another answer: Filipinos, nowadays are so poor that they cannot afford activism.

Much has been said about Philippine politics. Aside from being the first republic in Asia, the country was once a showcase of democracy during the People Power of 1986 that ousted the dictator Marcos from his seat. Democracy was restored in Cory's administration when civil liberties and political rights were reestablished in the 1987 Constitution. In 2001, People Power volted out President Estrada because of corruption, innefficient governance and his personal character.

At present, citizens are massing up against President Arroyo who is facing the issue of illegitimacy. Indeed, relative to other nations, Filipinos enjoyed a higher degree in political participation in the EDSA state years (1986-present). We may have been liberated from the repression of the Marcos regime but how free are we from the traditional bondages of poverty, unemployment, land distribution and other classical socioeconomic problems of the First Republic? After two presidents were ousted by People Power, rallyists dispersed from EDSA uprisings, and the dusts settled in the EDSA highway, how far did we go as a nation in our economic development path?

Many activists, especially the elderly ones, still romanticize the militant movements of 60's and 70's. They are wondering why militant activism of First Quarter Storm is not replicating in the present time. The stark difference between the socioeconomic context of pre-EDSA state years and EDSA state years can be identified as a significant factor in the difference in the degree and nature of activism between the two periods.

One may ask, why does activism flourish in pre-EDSA state years where there is a strong dictatorial regime than in the present EDSA state years which is a period of democratization and political empowerment? One may argue that violent state forces stimulated the rage among citzens that drives their activsim in the pre-EDSA state years but one may also argue that the restoration of civil liberties in the EDSA years created a democratic situation where activism operates better than in a dictatorial scenario. Looking for a more coherent story to explain the lost activism can be found in economic history.

Pre-EDSA against EDSA economy

Macroeconomic conditions indicated by higher GDP and its growth are far better in pre-EDSA state years (1950-1979) which experience the peak in the activist movements, than recent EDSA years (1980-2004) as seen in Table 1 and 2. Higher per capita GDP in the pre-EDSA period than the EDSA period indicates that an average Filipino citizen has greater economic resources for purchasing commodities in the 60's nd 70's than Filipino in the 80's to the present time.

There is a steady decline in the economic power of an average Filipino from the Marcos regime to the Arroyo administration. This decline in economic power among Filipinos can be explained by the decline in the labor share of Filipinos vis-a-vis capital in the national production. The crisis of unemployment and joblessness worsen from pre-EDSA to EDSA years, indicated by stagnant job growth and negative labor productivity growth in period 1980-2004. The increasing lack of jobs and falling wages mean that more Filipinos are losing the income that they need in purchasing the commodities necessary for their sustenance and development.

Another bad part of the story is that as the national economy worsens from Marcos to Arroyo regime, the class are the ones badly affected. Table 2 shows how the lower classes especially industrial workers and farmers lose their basic sources of livelihood as agriculture and industry sector weakens in the national production. As an effect, the earnings of the lower class who are mostly concentrated in the agricultural and industrial sector fell drastically compared to the upper and middle class who are mostly located in the service sector.

Persistent joblessness and falling wages of the masses vis-a-vis the middle and upper classes in the EDSA years reinforced the system of social inequality as shown in Table 5 which shows an increasing Gini coefficient. Table 5 further supports that the poor is getting poorer while the rich is getting richer in the EDSA years (1986-2004). Economic history shows that Filipinos are getting disempowered economically in the EDSA state years compared to the pre-EDSA years which highlights the Marcos regime.

What do Filipinos feel and see in the EDSA state

Macroeconomic conditions revealing the difficulty of living conditions in the country are highly consistent with the subjective perceptions of Filipinos. Above anything else such as political concerns, Filipinos nowadays are more preoccuppied in socioeconomic matters such as good health, schooling and food security as seen in the recent Pulse Asia survey in Table 6.

Filipinos are so poor that they are willing to use political tools not for political ends but for economic reason. 44% of Filipinos support charter change because they believe that cha-cha can improve their economic well-being. The top reasons of Filipinos in supporting Cha-cha are economic in nature such as lower prices for commodities, poverty-alleviation, and employment.

Apathy, Hopelessness or Rational “Deactivism”

As the macroeconomy and social welfare worsen from the pre-EDSA to EDSA state years, activism turns out to be a luxury that Filipinos can not afford. Economic disempowerment of Filipinos, brought about by shrinking income and declining real purchasing power, causes Filipinos to prioritize income-generating activities.

For basic survival reasons, Filipinos can not afford to divert their time and energy to political activities such as union assemblies, rallies and educational discussions that have no clear, immediate material benefits as compared to income-generating work.

How can we expect Manong magsasaka to have all the needed physical and mental energies in absorbing the consciousness-raising activities of political organizers when he has to double his effort in farming to cover up his production cost that is increased by rising prices of fertilizers, absence of micro-edit financing and competition from agricultural exports? Furthermore, Manong magsasaka has a family to feed and has several children dreaming to have a college degree.

The case of Manong magsasaka can also be true to some sections of the youth who are frequently perceived to be apathetic and hopeless. Do we perceive a young professional in a call center as selfish, apathetic Filipino whose time is being monitored by bundy clock, and brains being bought by stupid foreigners in exchange for a salary that he can use to pay the tuition of his other siblings?

Unlike the upper class who enjoys an excessive ownership of capital, average Filipinos seemingly can not afford to waste their ime and energy as their only productive resources to non-income generating activist work.

Economic disempowerment stands to be a limiting factor in the present state of activism. Lost activism or “deactivism”should not be simply seen as a product of apathy and hopelessness but as a rational behaviour of Filipinos to survive in an impoverished nation with no security for food, job and future.

Supportive of this proposition is Maslow's hierarchy of needs which states that an individual should fulfill first his basic and social necessities before he can consume the highest level of human need which is self-actualization. Self-actualization includes consciousness-raising, identity building and formation of personal ideologies.

Applying Maslow's' claims in the analysis, it means that Filipinos should first secure and satisfy their needs for food, water, clothing community life, and other social needs before they can actualize themselves in activism through rallies, discourses and political assemblies.

Developmental Activism and Prospects for the Left

The challenge for the left movement is tranforming its activism to be truly developmental for the Filipino masses. As the movement marches toward social change, the left will find themselves being pulled back by the traditional bondages of social inequality and underdevelopment. Political activism such as anti-GMA campaigns and electoral reforms can only move as far as economic empowerment moves among Filipinos as dictated by the organic connection of politics and economics in a society.

A case in point is the practice of community organizing by the left in the country that is gearing more on political work than on a more, holistic developmental program. Since most community-based NGOs and POs are sponsored or affiliated to political block, it is but rational for community organizers to focus on political organizing so they could later on absorb their sponsored communities into to their own political blocks.

But, how will activists empower local communities when the issues of a community are digressing from the political agenda of activists? Will community-based NGOs and POs be philantrophic to use their limited funds in solving community issues that are outside the agenda of their sponsoring political block?

The challenge for activists is how to develop the productive and reproductive capacities of communities that may empower them against relations of dependency from local elites. In rural areas, activists can establish cooperatives for the community that can serve as a center for micro-credit financing, technical education, livelihood projects and even, cultural discourses. By using their intellectual resources, activists can help farmers and fisherfolks learn to apply modern techniques and equipment in their production process.

In the national level, activists should increase their involvement in policy processes and the development of alternatives against policy regimes. Despite the changing waves of national politics, crucial economic campaigns such as agrarian reform, debt management, and deregulation should well be accomodated, sustained and strenghtened by all sections of the movement through shared ownership and shared responsibility because these are fundamental policies that creates structural problems in the economy.

Civil society formations should enhance its engagements with public institutions such as policy dialogue and consultation especially the public bodies that are managing the production and delivery of public services. Activists should take a step further by developing feasible alternatives rather than being known as complaining critics of national programs.

The civil-society sphere is not spared from economic constraints as some funding evaluators predict an exodus of external funding to NGOs and POs, five years from now. NGOs and POs should be empowered economically against financial insecurity and scarcity. One way of economic empowerment is to engage in income-generating activities. NGOs and POs can feasibly sustain themselves with their own income by using their own intellectual resources in delivering services in policy entrepreneuship between state and societal bodies.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Six Propositions and a (Political) Funeral

By: Francis Isaac

There are two considerations that would have to be dealt with by those who try to
seek profound changes in the status quo: first is the actual "act" of engagement
with the social world which results in the overall transformation of the prevailing
power-structures and the sweeping alterations in our given institutions. Second, is
the contemplation on the intended action, so as to fully comprehend its motivating
factors and anticipate its possible trajectory, future developments and end-result.

Though conceptually distinct, they are nonetheless inseparable. For it is the latter
that directs the former-a conceptual arrow a la Frederic Jameson that allows the
transformative process to become a series of informed decisions, guided by a clear
set of principles and a more-or-less coherent explanatory paradigm. Practice, on the
other hand, transports any discursive activity into the realm of the concrete,
subjecting our preliminary assumptions to empirical testing and verification, and if
need be, falsification.

Every so often, movements emerge claiming to follow this double undertaking,
blending both action and contemplation thus allowing them to arrive at a final
solution to all our societal woes. Repudiating both the ivory-towered academic and
the detached literary connoisseur, they seem to agree with Marx's assertion in his
Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach that "the philosophers have only interpreted the world,
in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."[1]

But a proffered claim may not always correspond to actual reality. For most often
than not, political movements tend to glorify its own discourse-to lapse into
"dogmatic slumber" by viewing their theoretical formulations as final and
authoritative explanations of the world-at-large. Rather than comprehend the
dialectical character of the "theory-practice nexus,"[2] reality is otherwise
perceived as the unshifting ground by which to impose their preconceived
Weltanschauung, or as an empirical prop in their quest for ideological
self-affirmation.

Such a habit, however, becomes increasingly untenable in a post-modern age, where we
are confronted by a world of fragmented categories and free-floating
signifiers-where our age-old certainties are slowly being questioned; where the
force of novelty erodes all that is traditional, accepted and conventional; where
"all that is solid melts into air."[3]

A predicament such as this has become even more apparent with the country's present
political crisis-an unfolding event that has defied the social movement's long-held
ideological assumptions, and which might very well leave it unprepared if it so
decides to cling to its comfortable dogmas and old orthodox views. The situation is
further characterized by the fact that the crisis has already reached a marked
degree of severity, but where the final tipping-point has yet to be reached.

This, then, brings us to Proposition 1: that the current crisis of the Arroyo
administration (and of the Philippine state as a whole) has led to a scenario where
no single major protagonist is able to muster the needed strength and wherewithal to
gain a significant and strategic advantage over its opponents. Hence, a protracted
stalemate could ensue, which would then lead to a burdensome war of political
attrition.

While at first glance, the arrayed forces may be organized into two competing
camps-with all the President's men (and women!) on one hand, and those seeking her
removal on the other-reality is far more complex. Rather, what we actually see is
the operationalization of Patricio Abinales' notion of "coalition politics," where
the "use of coalition arrangements" is utilized, either to "support candidates
running for the presidency"[4] or to dislodge an incumbent in Malacañang. Such
coalitions, he indicated, are largely eclectic for they

bring together groups that were and continue to be ideologically opposed. Either
aware of their limited influence or pragmatic enough to realize the need for
"tactical alliances" with opponents, these forces have temporarily set aside their
differences to work for a common goal.[5] (emphasis added)

In the current context, the party-list group Akbayan was able to identify at least
three coalitions or "poles," characterized by their varying programs and distinct
political agenda. First, is the ruling elite which they have dubbed as the "first
pole," composed of all the forces supportive of the administration. According to
Akbayan, this pole was primarily (if not singularly) responsible for the crisis
which was immediately brought about by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye's disclosure of
"'original' and 'altered' taped conversations that smacked of election rigging at
the highest levels (i.e., the President and the COMELEC)."[6]


Second, is the elite opposition or "second pole" which is "represented by the United
Opposition (UNO)/BAYAN group," along with the "CODE-NGO/Hyatt 10/Cory/Makati
Business Club aggrupation" whose primary agenda is to "take over the Presidency."[7]

And finally is the third pole organized around the Left-oriented Laban ng Masa
coalition (LnM), composed of "109 people's organizations, NGOs and individual social
activists"[8] and which calls for the establishment of a "transition revolutionary
government towards genuine political and economic reforms and an end to elite
rule."[9]

But such alliances have not remained static. For by September of this year, the
Bukluran para sa Katotohanan (Solidarity for Truth) was formed as a result of the
second and third poles' attempt to unite on a tactical basis and finally end the
Arroyo administration. Composed of traditional politicians (trapos) identified with
former President Joseph Estrada, elements from the middle forces (middle class),
supporters of losing presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr., and the various
factions of the Philippine Left, Bukluran's establishment indicated that the crisis
has already reached a point of near-polarization, wherein it was now possible to
place all the various anti-Arroyo factions with divergent (and often competing)
agenda in a single formation.

The Arroyo regime, however, remains formidable, due to the sheer influence of those
who have opted to support her, such as former President Fidel Ramos and the United
States which has displayed profound unwillingness to withdraw their support from the
administration. As a consequence, the country has now entered a period of
uncertainty with no single faction gaining a strategic upper hand.


Proposition 2: despite the incumbent's apparent culpability and lapse in political
probity, both the protest movement and the maneuverings of the elite opposition have
failed to elicit the spontaneous actions of the ideologically uncommitted and the
great bulk of the unorganized.

If the street protests are any indication, one can conclude that:

1.. both the Left and the anti-Arroyo politicians are unable mobilize people
beyond their own networks and organized base;
2.. that there is no clear trend that would definitely show that those involved in
the campaign for the President's removal, impeachment or ouster (RIO) is slowly
accumulating strength needed for any final and decisive confrontation; and
3.. that what we rather see is an erratic marshalling of forces that would either
expand or contract, depending on a given situation.

This is corroborated by the fact that in the previous July, the broad opposition was
able to mount three major mobilizations-the first was on July 1 in Ayala, Makati
which was able to gather approximately 10,000 people; then another on July 13 where
an estimated crowd of 40,000 protesters occupied the stretches of Paseo de Roxas and
Ayala Avenue. And the third was during Arroyo's State of the Nation Address (SONA)
on July 25 where about 80,000 militant flocked to Commonwealth Avenue, a kilometer
away from the Batasang Pambansa.

While this shows an exponential increase in their mobilizing capacity within less
than a month's time, the anti-GMA forces were nonetheless unable to undertake a
similar offensive the following August. When they were finally able to regroup and
initiate a fresh a political assault on September 21 in Ayala, a mere 20,000 came to
the protest which quickly fizzled out by the onset of evening.[10]

Such a situation gains greater significance when viewed from the vantage point of
EDSA 1 and 2 which were brought about through the independent initiative of the
urban population, either to support a botched up military coup by Ramos and Enrile
(as in the case of the former) or to express their outrage over the "second
envelope" fiasco during the Senate impeachment hearings in 2001.

The difficulty is even more acute for those in the Left who, despite their notion of
democratic centralism and the pivotal role of the vanguard party, readily recognizes
the role of spontaneity as a necessary ingredient for any successful revolutionary
upsurge. As Marxist scholar Ernest Mandel observed, a spontaneous political act is
often the result of a revolutionary minority's efforts at proselytization, in
educating the masses, in developing their capacity for political combat, by mingling
with the great unwashed, in attending to their needs, and in strengthening their
faith in the inevitable dawn of revolutionary redemption.

In one case, we will be able to detect in "spontaneous" action the fruits of years
of "underground activity" by a trade-union opposition, or a rank-and-file group; in
another case, the result of contracts that, for a rather long period of time, have
patiently-and without apparent success-been nurtured by shop colleagues and in a
neighboring city (or a neighboring factory) where the "left-wingers" are stronger.
In class struggle too there is no such thing as a goose "spontaneously" falling from
heaven already cooked.[11]

Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, for his part, underscored the dialectical
relationship between spontaneity and organized political action, for "the
'spontaneous' movements of the broader popular strata make possible the coming to
power of the most progressive subaltern class as a result of the objective weakening
of the State."[12]

Even Lenin who, among all Marxists, stressed the overriding import of party
discipline and coordination, recognized the necessity for the masses' independent
initiative for the simple reason that even a revolutionary vanguard does not have
the intrinsic capacity to overthrow the state, let alone supplant the
powers-that-be. As the Bolshevik leader readily claimed:

Victory cannot be won with the vanguard alone. To throw the vanguard alone into the
decisive battle, before the whole class, before the broad masses have taken up a
position either of direct support of the vanguard, or at least of benevolent
neutrality towards it and one in which they cannot possibly support the enemy, would
be not merely folly but a crime. And in order that actually the whole class, that
actually the broad masses of toilers and those oppressed by capital may take up such
a position, propaganda and agitation alone are not enough. For this the masses must
have their own political experience.[13] (underscoring supplied)


Proposition 3: Such inaction may be attributed to the public's total distrust of the
elite politicians who have organized themselves into the United Opposition (UNO)
since they have yet to show any inclination to go beyond their class interest, much
less transcend their most immediate factional agenda-POWER!

In an article written shortly after the President's State of the Nation Address in
July 2005, Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD) senior researcher Patrick Patiño
described UNO as the "frontline coalition of political parties, politicians and
supporters of deposed president Estrada and the late Fernando Poe Jr.," and which
was the "major political organization under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino
(Coalition of United Pilipinos), the campaign machinery of FPJ in the 2004
elections."[14]

With this in mind, UNO can then be characterized as the working coalition of the
country's four major opposition parties, namely: the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(LDP), the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC), PDP-Laban and the Partido ng Masang
Pilipino (PMP). By and large, these were the very same groups which, for the most
part, supported former President Estrada who was subsequently booted out of office
for his alleged involvement in jueteng-the country's premiere illegal numbers game.

Simply put, it is UNO's involvement with the previous administration that has become
its biggest political burden-viewed by the public as the most tainted of all the
anti-Arroyo forces with no other political agenda but to regain its previous
foothold in Malacañang. In fact, public distrust is so widespread that it is often
described as the trapo[15] opposition.

Its dented political image can be explained by the fact that it has come to
represent all the shortcomings of the political system that was created after the
downfall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. Dubbed by academics as elite
democracy,[16] this type of political rule can be characterized by:

1. The dispersal of power among rival factions of the elite, with no central
bureaucracy acting as the sole receptacle of prestige and political authority;

2. The formal existence of various institutions of democratic governance such
as a duly approved Constitution, the enjoyment of civil liberties, the presence of
an independent judiciary and the existence of a well-respected legislature, but
where real political power is concentrated in the hands of a small and exploitative
elite; and

3. The exercise of periodic elections less as a means of enhancing greater
popular participation than as a mechanism for resolving intra-elite competition.

Under such an arrangement, political parties do not function as "inputting
devices"[17] which allow for interest aggregation and articulation, but as
instruments of patronage and elite consolidation. As Joel Rocamora bitingly remarks
in his critique on present-day Philippine political culture:

Our political parties.are not divided on the basis of long-term upper class
interests, much less the interests of the lower classes. They are temporary and
unstable coalitions of upper class fractions pieced together for elections and
post-election battles for patronage. They come together only to put down assertions
of lower class interests. The rest of the time they maneuver in particularistic
horsetrading and the perennial search for "deals."[18]

Hence, the United Opposition can never be a force for genuine societal change.
Rather, it is more of a symptom rather than a medication for the disease that it
purports to address.

Proposition 4: that the failure of the Left to gain enough popular sympathy and
support is due to the Reaffirmists' open tactical alliance with UNO and Laban ng
Masa's equivocal efforts to distance itself from the trapo opposition.

In a statement in the 8 July 2005 special issue of Ang Bayan, the Executive
Committee of the CPP Central Committee called on all its party members and mass
supporters to forge a formal alliance with the United Opposition, arguing that the
Left's most immediate task is the formation of a broad coalition that has the
capability of emasculating President Arroyo and all her lackeys in the
administration. This, the communist leadership claimed, is needed so as to isolate
the regime and pave the way for the formation of a caretaker-type of "democratic
council." As the statement further suggests:

The progressive forces may enter into formal alliance with the political opposition,
where they may work with the pro-Estrada and anti-Arroyo reactionaries, as their
struggle against the ruling regime becomes fiercer and more intense. Cooperation in
the struggle against the common enemy would thereby emerge as the most prominent
feature, and serve as the context in addressing any unsettled issues in connection
with the EDSA 2 struggle.[19] (emphasis added)

Less than a month later, the Party proudly proclaimed the inroads that they have
made in forming such a coalition, stating that they were able to bring together an
eclectic mix of Leftist activists, Estrada loyalists and traditional politicians
during the last SONA demonstration near the Batasan. In a brief article which
appeared in its official organ Ang Bayan, the CPP reported that:

(t)he demonstration led by the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), the Gloria Step
Down Movement (GSM) and the United Opposition was joined by various democratic
organizations of workers, women, students, professionals, church people and others
in Metro Manila and nearby provinces, representatives of progressive party-list
groups and supporters of the late Fernando Poe, Jr.[20]

This position, however, was severely attacked by Sanlakas' resident theoretician
Arnel Martinez, accusing the CPP of "tailism" and of succumbing to the control of
the elite opposition.[21]

Laban ng Masa (whose member-organizations have criticized the CPP in varying
degrees), on the other hand, has also displayed the same pragmatism as their fellow
Leftist competitor-though in a far less compromising manner. In a document entitled
Strategy and Tactics of LABAN NG MASA: A Proposal, the said formation stressed the
need to work in tandem with the bourgeois opposition-to establish an informal
tactical alliance with their elite opponents while maintaining their distance and
independence and retaining a fair degree of political initiative. As the document
clearly stipulates:

By developing the progressive forces, we will be in a better position to deal and
negotiate with the elite opposition. At this point in time, informal and tactical
alliances with them are better suited to our purposes. The process towards a
formally negotiated alliance with them in the formation of a transition government
will depend on their consistency in taking the extra-constitutional path and
accepting the minimum demands put forward by the Left and progressive coalition.[22]
(underscoring supplied)

This has therefore placed LnM in a politically awkward predicament. For while it
"reject(s) the constitutional methods of regime change" since "these methods will
preserve the structural obstacles to social change," they are nonetheless willing
"to work with everyone who has a significant mass following and resources to
contribute in the oust-GMA campaign."

By comparing these two positions, one can arrive at the following:

· that the Communist Party view the current crisis as tactical in character
which can advance the revolution but cannot grant it any opportunity for a decisive
victory;

· while Laban ng Masa, on the other hand, assume that the present
conjuncture can gain a strategic importance, depending upon the balance of forces
and contingent actions that the various groups would undertake as they react to the
still-fluid situation.

In retrospect, the CPP position can be fully understood if one would analyze their
overall strategic framework. By adopting Mao Zedong's concept of protracted people's
war, the Party has, in effect, mandated itself to establish guerilla bases in the
countryside so as to develop the movement's military potential and gradually
surround enemy-held urban centers, until such a time when it can advance "wave upon
wave" throughout the entire archipelago.

With such a framework, armed struggle then becomes the preeminent mode of
revolutionary action, wherein final victory will be brought about through a decisive
clash of arms with the reactionary state. This was further elaborated by CPP
founding Chairman Jose Maria Sison who, in an interview with German academic Rainer
Werning, stressed the primary role of armed action in the overall conduct of the
revolution:

The strategic line of people's war is to encircle the cities from the countryside
and accumulate strength until the people's army is strong enough to defeat the enemy
forces entrenched in the cities. People's war is likely to pass through three
strategic stages: defensive, stalemate, and offensive. But within the strategic
defensive, tactical offensives can be launched and won by the people's army.[23]

The LnM position, on the other hand, indicate a more Leninist approach, relying
instead on the political nature of the crisis to advance the revolutionary agenda by
working in tandem with the bourgeois opposition while maintaining their
organizational independence and initiative. This thinking was first outlined by
Lenin in a pamphlet entitled Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic
Revolution where he reminded his readers that:

Marxism teaches the proletarian not to keep aloft from the bourgeois revolution, not
to refuse to take part in it, not to allow the leadership of the revolution to be
assumed by the bourgeoisie but, on the contrary, to take a most energetic part in
it, to fight resolutely for consistent proletarian democracy, to fight to carry out
the revolution to its completion.[24]

To do so, the movement, "acting on the basis of bourgeois society," is enjoined to
march "side by side with bourgeois democracy;" that is, "to march side by side with
the revolutionary and republican bourgeoisie without merging with it."[25]

No essential contradiction can therefore be perceived in the CPP and LnM's approach.
For there is substantial agreement between the respective positions of the two.
Arguing that the fall of elite rule remains the end-objective of any revolutionary
enterprise, the two major Left formations emphasize the necessity of working with
the trapo opposition so as to weaken the bourgeoisie as a class and overthrow the
present regime. The difference, however, lie on the degree of the alliance with the
elites and the precise mode of how the revolution is to be carried out.

Such a stance indicates a fair sense of realpolitik on the part of the Left, viewing
the crisis as a zero-sum game where the accumulation of strength by one of the
contending forces would necessarily lead to the weakening of the other. Hence,
politics is seen as the movement and interaction of organized formations and
interest groups for the purpose of acquiring power, characterized by the fleeting
loyalties of shifting coalitions and sudden maneuvers of class-based fractions. And
"power," as French philosopher Michel Foucault bluntly suggests, "is war, a war
continued by other means."[26]

However, it precisely this "realistic" approach to politics that has alienated the
Left from the very people whom it is supposed to serve. By marching side by side
with bourgeois democracy, the public had the unfortunate impression (albeit wrongly)
that the revolutionary movement is essentially on the side of the bourgeoisie. In
fact, even the Left's foremost nemesis Imelda Marcos found such political
cohabitation shocking and detestable, and has even expressed her failure to
"understand why her daughter (Imee Marcos) had to be seen with.leaders of the
militant left"[27] during the September 6 anti-Arroyo rally near the Batasang
Pambansa.

This embarrassing predicament of the revolutionary movement was brought about by its
failure to understand that it is now operating in a post-modern terrain; where
political reality can no longer be directly perceived by the public, but is rather
mediated through the Fourth Estate.[28] And as a perennial presence and institution,
the media abhors abstractions and elaboration. On the contrary, it seeks to compress
the truth into tiny bits of information-transforming treatises into catchy
sound-bites, spectacles into images, the truth into pure simulacrum.[29] This then
leads to the phenomenon of "bounded reality" where the individual perceiver is
burdened by limited time, information and cognitive capacity to process the data
that he or she has accumulated.

Hence, by marching side-by-side or (Heaven forbid!) linking arms with the
bourgeoisie in an open-air rally, the public will have the impression that either
the Left is as opportunistic as the anti-Arroyo elites whom it is supposed to
repudiate, or that its political agenda is simply identical with that of the United
Opposition. This is so since the information that people receive has already been
filtered through the media, thereby constraining their ability to detect the
minutiae ideological differences and class contradictions among the anti-Arroyo
coalition.

To address this situation, the Left should have placed greater premium on the
educational aspect of its advocacy. Not only should it address the most pressing
political concerns of the day, but it should also promote values that engender hope
and empower citizens so that they may be able to claim concrete victories in the
immediate and long-term. As Gramsci pointed out, "every relationship of "hegemony"
is necessarily an educational relationship" that occurs, "not only within a nation,"
but also among "the various forces of which the nation is composed."[30]

By either forging a formal alliance or working in tandem with the elite opposition,
the Left has blunted its own revolutionary role; for it has instead become an
unwitting pawn in the perpetuation of political patronage and other reactionary
practices that UNO has come to exemplify.

Proposition 5: that this opportunist trend within the Left could have either been
assuaged or addressed by its youth component. However, the existing youth
organizations have not shown any inclination for ideological discourse, thereby
precluding them from questioning the wisdom of their political elders and the
actions of their organizational superiors.

As the harbinger of new ideas and as the repository of the nation's future, the
youth is supposed to challenge old dogmas and comfortable conventions that have
largely been inherited from the past so as to conjure far novel ideas and expand (as
Jean Paul Sartre suggests) the realm of the possible. By so doing, the dialectical
process is given a helpful nudge, weeding out the moribund theses from the
past-abandoning all that is dying, decrepit and worn-out.

In recent years however, youth and student groups from the broad Left community have
failed to perform this historical task. Constrained by rigid organizational
strictures and by the expectations of their elders, the organized youth have instead
become the promoters of the most rigid orthodoxy-trained to toe the party line and
perform prosyletization and propaganda work among the masses with no single question
being raised.

This line of thought was first expressed by CPP Chairman Amado Guerrero who, in his
book Philippine Society and Revolution, argued that the youth is simply a "force
(in) assisting the proletariat in the spread of revolutionary propaganda on a
nationwide scale."[31] Lumping them together with other sections of the
intelligentsia and petty bourgeoisie, the Party Chair further noted that the youth

is the most important and decisive in preparing public opinion in favor of the
Philippine Revolution.They are in a good position to undertake this task because
they have a keen political sense, they are the most numerous part of the
intelligentsia, they are the most widespread and yet they are concentrated in
schools in particular points in both urban and rural areas. They can easily relay
revolutionary propaganda and reach the masses throughout the archipelago beyond the
capability of reactionaries to curtail the truth of the people's democratic
revolution.[32]

It is in this context that Jose Maria Sison's notion of the Second Propaganda
Movement gains greater resonance. Envisioned as a "cultural revolution of a national
democratic orientation," the youth is given a pivotal role in this political
enterprise by speaking out "without end for national democracy in classrooms, in the
streets, over the radio and everywhere else."[33] In other words, the youth is
expected to serve as mere conduits of party propaganda-embracing the prevailing
organizational policy as a new secular gospel, and at the same time dissuaded from
critically examining its content, consequences and conceptual nuances.

With this ingrained practice in the Philippine Left, it is thus no surprise to find
the progressive movement partaking of the very same traits with that of the most
conservative of all Western influences-the Catholic Church. In fact, it was this
2,000-year old institution that first suffused the word "propaganda" with a more
instrumentalist content in the early seventeenth century, at the onset of the Thirty
Years War.

A Latin word which means "things to be propagated," this rather innocuous term soon
became part of the modern world's political lexicon when in 1622, Pope Gregory XV
created a committee of cardinals dubbed as the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide
(Congregation for Propagating the Faith) to oversee the spread of Christianity in
non-Catholic countries and regulate ecclesiastical affairs in mission territories.

Thus understood, propaganda now refers to the act of propagating a particular faith
or creed-whether religious or secular, Marxist or Christian-and how it ensures its
hegemony over all the rest. And while the youth sector may be in the best position
to perform such a role (given its vigorous character and idealistic predilection),
they can only be effective is there is wide unanimity on the faith or paradigm that
they are supposed to disseminate. But they can have no degree of efficacy whatsoever
if the said body of thought is burdened by numerous anomalies-a paradigmatic
situation defined by Thomas Kuhn as a period of crisis which is characterized by the
growing disjunction between its theoretical explanation and ground reality.

And such is the predicament of the Philippine Left. Weakened by internal purges in
the 1980s and factional splits in the decade thereafter, it is only now that the
revolutionary movement has gained the capacity (and good sense) to initiate
inter-bloc dialogue and recover lost ground. But even if these initiatives are
already being done, it has yet to construct a new theoretical paradigm and
analytical frame that could supplant the old, outmoded prism of national democracy.

But what are we to make of all of these? Can there still be hope for the
revolutionary movement, and the nation as a whole? How are we to go about our work
in the absence of any solid ideological compass to guide our path? Can the Left
possibly weather this dark night of the national soul and gain significance amidst
the crisis that beset us?

Being a "hopeless" optimist, I can only respond with an affirmative note. As an
activist and as an individual, I sincerely believe that the country shall not only
survive but will subsequently thrive, with the Left acting as a positive force for
change. But this can only be done if (and only if) the revolutionary movement would
emphasize less on its rah-rah politics and begin a critical reexamination of itself
and the new social context in which it is immersed. It is with this hope for
reexamination and renewal that I offer my final proposition.


Proposition 6: that a group (or even a grouplet, if you will) is required to act as
a gadfly that would sting the Philippine Left so as to awaken it from its long
political slumber.

In his work the Apology, Plato wrote that when his teacher and long-time friend
Socrates was brought before the Council of Five Hundred, this snub-nosed philosopher
stated that the Athenian state was like a "noble steed" which (owing to its very
size) was "tardy in motion.and requires to be stirred into life."[34] He, on the
other hand, was a mere gadfly which was tasked to sting his beloved polis so it may
rise from its sleep of equanimity and awake-bathed in the truth's undying glow.

Though the Council's response was highly unfavorable (prompting Socrates to end his
life by drinking a cup of hemlock), history has nonetheless granted its kindness
upon this unfortunate Athenian, reminding the huge to heed the voice of the small so
that it may reflect upon its actions, directions and decisions.

Unfortunately, the Philippine Left still has to learn this humbling yet valuable
lesson. For since the 1970s, the movement has repeatedly sought refuge in its
numerical strength and organizational broadness, dismissing all other ideological
challengers as misguided reformers or, worse, as counter-revolutionary pretenders.
While such condescension (if not arrogance) is perfectly justifiable in a situation
where the Left enjoys broad popular support and has already attained a fair degree
of counter-hegemony this thinking cannot possibly hold water at a time when the
movement is deeply divided and has yet to completely recover from the Great Schism
of 1991.

This culture of numerical arrogance is clearly manifested by Jose Maria Sison,
particularly in his repeated use of the word "grouplet" to describe (and dismiss)
all the various forces in the Left who have either bolted out of the Communist Party
or were never part of the CPP-led national democratic movement in the first place.
He even called militant party-list Akbayan as a "small reformist group" at one
point, alleging that it maintains close ties with "certain rightwing NGO
entrepreneurs, Trotskyites and other anti-communist groups."[35] This statement from
the Philippine Ayatollah (as Patricio Abinales fondly calls Sison) betrays an
over-reliance on sheer numbers to prove the Party's organizational strength and the
veracity of its position.


Sison's contention, however, falls on three points:

· first, that numbers alone is a shallow determinant of truth (or at the
very least, sound political sense) for as the truism suggests, "the majority may not
always be right;"

· second, while the CPP may be the biggest faction within the Philippine
Left, they are still nonetheless diminutive when compared to all the other forces
seeking power and prestige in the country; and

· third, numbers and majorities are ephemeral in character, for the
minorities of today can be the dominant fractions of tomorrow.

And as to the non-efficacy of mere "grouplets" and other similar diminutive
formations, history has proven otherwise. In France for instance, prior to the
Student Revolt of May 1968, Charles de Gaulle causally dismissed the then-emerging
campus radical groups as mere "groupuscules," hinting that they will be unable to
make any dent on the French regime's power-structure. The students, however, seized
upon this term of mockery and used it as their own-adopting it as a badge of pride
and identity as they roam the various schools, demanding both relevance and
resistance.

Then, on the spring of that year, the impossible occurred. As if on cue, various
Left-wing groupuscules operating outside the influence of (and sometimes in
opposition to) the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) seized the buildings of the
Sorbonne and occupied the Latin Quarter. Bearing the brunt of the French police,
these defiant youngsters soon captured the imagination of the public; with survey
group IFOP reporting on May 8 that "four-fifths of the people of Paris were
sympathetic to the rebellious students."[36] By the 13th of that month, around
800,000 workers joined the protesting students, which then led to the formation of
the Sorbonne soviet.

While the revolt ultimately failed in bringing down the regime, it was nonetheless
pivotal in shattering General de Gaulle's personal prestige, forcing him to retire
from politics less than a year later. It also inaugurated a host of reforms which
"gave a semblance of participation to students and workers."[37] And most
importantly, it paved the way for the revival of the Left, culminating in Francois
Mitterrand and the Socialist Party's electoral victory in 1981.

It must however be pointed out that while this paper accentuates the political
importance of small autonomous formations, the author is nonetheless supportive of
the current unity efforts within the democratic Left.[38] Neither does it call for
the formation of new factions within the existing political blocs, knowing full well
that it can only harm the revolutionary movement in the long-term.

I do, however, see the need for a total reexamination of Leftist discourse, and a
thorough reassessment of its Leninist practice. And such a task would have to be
initiated by the younger members of these blocs, for the more senior revolutionaries
seem to abhor such schemes, trained as they were in the approaches of the old. More
so, by being carried out by the movement's more youthful activists, they will be
able to bring a sense of idealism to their actions, which the old Left seemed to
have lost due to its pragmatism and embarrassing compromises with our class enemies.

In addition, this campaign for Left renewal need not have a formal organization. It
could be a spontaneous initiative by a comrade, or even a loose network of fellow
travelers and activists longing for rethinking and ideological Renaissance.

But regardless of how it would be carried out, the process must start now. For only
by abandoning the ideas that we have inherited from the Comintern can the Left
successfully prepare the Arroyo administration's political funeral.



REFERENCES

Abinales, Patricio. "Coalition Politics in the Philippines," in Current History.
April 2001.

Ang Bayan. "On Arroyo's SONA: Protests Reverberate Within and Outside the Country."
7 August 2005.

Executive Committee of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the Philippines.
"Oust the Fascist and Puppet Arroyo Regime," in Ang Bayan (Special Issue). 8 July
2005.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977.
Pantheon Books: New York; 1980.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell Smith, eds. International Publishers: New York; 1997.

Guerrero, Amado. Philippine Society and Revolution. International Association of
Filipino Patriots (IAFP): Oakland; 1979.

Heywood, Andrew. Politics (Second Edition). Palgrave Foundations: New York; 2002.

Katsiaficas, George. The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968.
South End Press: Boston; 1987.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second Edition,
Enlarged). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laban ng Masa. Laban ng Masa Slams GMA-Sponsored Cha Cha, Presses for Transitional
Revolutionary Government. Press Release. 13 July 2005.

Laban ng Masa. A Call for an End to Elite Rule. Press Statement. 8 July 2005.

Laban ng Masa. Strategy and Tactics of Laban ng Masa: A Proposal. July 2005.

Lenin, V.I. "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder: A Popular Essay in Marxist
Strategy and Tactics. International Publishers: New York; 1989.

Lenin, V.I. Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.
International Publishers: New York; 1989.

Manila Standard Today. 16 September 2005.

Mandel, Ernest. The Leninist Theory of Organization: Its Relevance for Today.
Reprinted from International Socialist Review by Life is Beautiful Press: Manila;
1999.

Martinez, Arnel. "Ang Pagpapailalim ng mga Maoista sa Linya ng Elitistang
Oposisyon," in Obrero. Blg. 23, Hulyo-Agosto 2005.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Washington Square Press:
New York; 1964.

Marx, Karl. "Theses on Feuerbach;" in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Basic Writing
on Politics and Philosophy. Lewis Feuer, ed. Anchor Books: New York; 1959.

National Executive Committee, AKBAYAN (Citizens' Action Party). The Third
Pole-Beyond Elite Options: Putting the Citizens Back In (Akbayan's Agenda in the
Current Political Crisis. 29 July 2005.

Patiño, Patrick. Philippine Political Crisis: Issues, Balance of Forces, Scenarios.
http://www.ipd.ph/features/2005/Besieged.html.

Plato. "Apology," in The Republic and Other Works. Anchor Books: New York; 1973.

Rocamora, Joel. "The Constitutional Amendment Debate: Reforming Political
Institutions, Reshaping Political Culture," in Shift. Glenda Gloria, ed. Ateneo
Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs: Quezon City; 1997.

Rosenau, Pauline Marie. 1992. Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights,
Inroads, and Incursions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sison, Jose Maria. "CPP and NDFP Uphold Human Rights," in Philippine Daily Inquirer.
16 January 2005, p.A16.

Sison, Jose Maria (with Rainer Werning). The Philippine Revolution: The Leader's
View. Crane Russak: New York; 1989.

Sison, Jose Maria. Struggle for National Democracy (New Edition). College Editors
Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) and Amado V. Hernandez Memorial Foundation: Manila;
1980.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Marx, Karl. "Theses on Feuerbach;" in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Basic
Writing on Politics and Philosophy. Lewis Feuer, ed. Anchor Books: New York; 1959,
p.245.

[2] Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Quintin Hoare and
Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds. International Publishers: New York; 1997, p.334.

[3] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Washington Square
Press: New York; 1964, p.63.

[4] Abinales, Patricio. "Coalition Politics in the Philippines," in Current History.
April 2001, p.154.

[5] Ibid., p.161.

[6] National Executive Committee, AKBAYAN (Citizens' Action Party). The Third
Pole-Beyond Elite Options: Putting the Citizens Back In (Akbayan's Agenda in the
Current Political Crisis. 29 July 2005, p.2.

[7] Ibid., p.3.

[8] Laban ng Masa. Laban ng Masa Slams GMA-Sponsored Cha Cha, Presses for
Transitional Revolutionary Government. Press Release. 13 July 2005.

[9] Laban ng Masa. A Call for an End to Elite Rule. Press Statement. 8 July 2005.

[10] This number remains highly contested, with the Philippine National Police
pegging it at 5,000. The Philippine Daily Inquirer, on the other hand, placed it at
7,500 which is a far cry from the total claim of rally organizers.

[11] Mandel, Ernest. The Leninist Theory of Organization: Its Relevance for Today.
Reprinted from International Socialist Review by Life is Beautiful Press: Manila;
1999, p.8.

[12] Gramsci, op.cit., p.200.

[13] Lenin, V.I. "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder: A Popular Essay in
Marxist Strategy and Tactics. International Publishers: New York; 1989, pp.73-74.

[14] Patiño, Patrick. Philippine Political Crisis: Issues, Balance of Forces,
Scenarios. http://www.ipd.ph/features/2005/Besieged.html

[15] The Tagalog word for "dirty old rag" and a derogatory ellipsis for "traditional
politician," trapo is often used to denote all the shortcoming of Philippine
politics and is often equated with graft and corruption.

[16] Such a category has been used by Francisco Nemenzo, Jr., Walden Bello, John
Gersman and Olivia Caoili among others.

[17] Heywood, Andrew. Politics, (Second Edition). Palgrave Foundations: New York;
2002, p. 252.

[18] Rocamora, Joel. "The Constitutional Amendment Debate: Reforming Political
Institutions, Reshaping Political Culture," in Shift. Glenda Gloria, ed. Ateneo
Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs: Quezon City; 1997, p.106.

[19] Executive Committee of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the
Philippines. "Oust the Fascist and Puppet Arroyo Regime," in Ang Bayan (Special
Issue). 8 July 2005, p.2.

[20] Ang Bayan. "On Arroyo's SONA: Protests Reverberate Within and Outside the
Country." 7 August 2005, p.3.

[21] Martinez, Arnel. "Ang Pagpapailalim ng mga Maoista sa Linya ng Elitistang
Oposisyon," in Obrero. Blg. 23, Hulyo-Agosto 2005.

[22] Laban ng Masa. Strategy and Tactics of Laban ng Masa: A Proposal. July 2005.

[23] Sison, Jose Maria (with Rainer Werning). The Philippine Revolution: The
Leader's View. Crane Russak: New York; 1989, p.53.

[24] Lenin, V.I. Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.
International Publishers: New York; 1989, p.41.

[25] Ibid., p.35.

[26] Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
1972-1977. Pantheon Books: New York; 1980, p.90.

[27] Manila Standard Today. 16 September 2005.

[28] This is the formal nomenclature of the liberal press and mass media.

[29] Pauline Rosenau defines simulacrum as "a copy of a copy for which there is no
original," wherein "no distinction can remain between the real and the model." For a
further discussion on this topic, see her book Post-Modernism and the Social
Sciences: Insights, Inroads and Intrusions.

[30] Gramsci, op.cit., p.350.

[31] Guerrero, Amado. Philippine Society and Revolution. International Association
of Filipino Patriots (IAFP): Oakland; 1979, p.140.

[32] Ibid., p.139.

[33] Sison, Jose Maria. Struggle for National Democracy (New Edition). College
Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) and Amado V. Hernandez Memorial Foundation:
Manila; 1980, p.26.

[34] Plato. "Apology," in The Republic and Other Works. Anchor Books: New York;
1973, p.460.

[35] Sison, Jose Maria. "CPP and NDFP Uphold Human Rights," in Philippine Daily
Inquirer. 16 January 2005, p.A16.

[36] Katsiaficas, George. The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of
1968. South End Press: Boston; 1987, p.88.

[37] Ibid., p.111.

[38] By democratic Left, we refer to the non-CPP groups which have recently embraced
the call for inter-bloc dialogue and greater unity among the progressive forces.