"FOR WHAT IS NATIONALISM IF IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC
AND NOT FOR THE POOR?"
The waves of protest continue to prevail in the entire nation. Most of the people felt in a different manner, some quickly agitated, others quickly irritated. The society, as what I expected, and its system prevails its rotten characteristics similar to having its people join into the flow despite its problem regarding through.
In this writeup, I am deeply concerned about nationalism. The weapon of left and right, this idea stresses the consciousness of the people towards its own homeland and on how to make it just and prosperous in its own name, using its labour, its heritage, and even its knowledge to keep it intact. However, I am thinking that nationalism, depending on the one who applies it can be opportunistic in some way, especially from the right whose stress is on the "nation" or rather the "race." I accept what they commonly used to, but they lack something as what the left has which is "Democracy", "Equality", and even "Fraternity." Liberty, Justice, and Peace, in my own idea are too common for that in their advocacies.
In that situation, I even think that National consciousness, or rather say the "modern" national consciousness also involves class consciousness as well as eradicating the perannial problem both in national and in class ideas. Like "Why are we fighting for national liberation if we didn't fight also for class liberation?", "What is national liberation if equality is not also advocated?", "What is independence if it is not for all like justice, peace and prosperity?" or to be more accurate: "FOR WHAT IS NATIONALISM IF IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC AND NOT FOR THE POOR?"
These examples of words being stated I think is considered as general, not in totally specific terms as what lhe "left" and right used to. Like the French people, especially the poor french farmers and artisans, out of love of country and of opposing domestic oppression laid for centuries, rose up and fought violently to achieve their goal of freedom and justice, and in governance, they applied a government which is for the benefit of all, especially the oppressed peoples and not of the few. The Russians, same as the French, also fought for the same ideas of justice, equality and freedom, but then, they also stresses on peace, land and even bread for the benefit of all the Russian people who are also imbued with national and class consciousness given by Marx, Engels and Lenin. As what the French are imbued with ideas given by Voltaire, Rousseau and Robespierre.
Even in the Philippines, being a colony of Spain and influenced by the west (especially the French), hath been enlightened and fought for their emancipation. However, the real objective of the Philippine revolution of 1896 was not just freeing the country from colonial oppression, but also of domestic oppression and social injustice. Filipinos may consider independence as its main goal, however they also have plans in pursuit of their justice, like having a government that would suit their aspirations as a nation, especially the oppressed majority; the lands once owned by the landlords be given to the tillers (since the country is agricutural);as well as a good standard of living being a native of the nation. These ideas involved in the revolution may have not been said in mainstream history of the people for they're focused more on foreign oppression.
Once I browsed the writeup coming from the former Czechoslovak National Socialist Party, also known as the Czechoslovak Socialist Party of the Czech National Front during the cold war era. Upon looking through, their ideas are simply advocating socialism along national lines (since they stress czechoslovak independence at that time). Their objective can be considered as their path as what it says:
"collectivizing by means of development, surmounting of class struggle by national discipline, moral rebirth and democracy as the conditions of socialism..."
As I look upon it, it can be considered good since it focuses alongside the needs and wants of the Czechoslovaks, applying Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism in that state. However, they simply disregard class struggle in favor of national discipline, and thus I opposed it since not all class struggles are indisciplined, especially in the national scene. For the struggle, in achieving it, requires countless organization, and organization requires discipline in achieving it, along national lines since it adapts the ideas of the people as a nation (national discipline), like in China during the early days of the people's republic, as what Mao Zedong said about discipline in the party as well as the people:
"Within the ranks of the people, democracy is correlative with centralism and freedom with discipline. They are the two opposites of a single entity, contradictory as well as united, and we should not one-sidedly emphasize one to the denial of the other. Within the ranks of the people, we cannot do without freedom, nor can we do without discipline; we cannot do without democracy, nor can we do without centralism. This unity of democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline, constitutes our democratic centralism. Under this system, the people enjoy extensive democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have to keep within the bounds of socialist discipline."
For what is organized rallies then? Like the Edsa Revolts in 1986 and 2001? In appearance it can be noisy and unorganized, however, they are consisted of peoples fighting for a short term national change, if not for liberation; and at least they have imbued with discipline since they are organized although there are others who are likely to put their minds on their fists to beat the police!
And through discipline among the ranks of the struggling masses, the struggle would have been fulfilled, there they would set up in an organized manner the state, and firmly implimenting the programs vested by the people for the people. For this action, as what the Czechoslovak and the Chinese did is out of love for nation and its care for the people, which is an ultimate and fundamental obligation. People may have deny this transition for the fact that Nationalism leads to Democracy, and Democracy leads to Socialism, leading to a countless direct struggle and transition towards international communism (through support and a virtual and fraternal alliance amongst the nations, especially the peoples)- for "the people as a nation needs to understand being a nation as a people," especially the majority who was and is fighting for, not just rights, but for needs and wants.