Revolution? Or Ersatz Revolution?
The spirit of 1986 and 2001 in the Philippines, according to the majority of the people, ought to call it as a revolution since most of them think of it as they topple a corrupt, oppressive government and leadership. However, as they passed these decades after these so-called revolutions lies the rise of errors that is in need of rectification.
These errors for sure lay above all in the basic contradiction, as we see the ruling classes not seriously undertaking the so-called "revolutionary" objectives of theirs and instead bannering it; while the masses end up either agreeing or disagreeing with their ideas related to their actions. They may changed the leadership, but the entire system? I doubt, for the ruling class remains skeptical about what they made and instead, enjoying in their orgy of privileges given upon to them while the masses remained poor.
I consider the actions of the ruling class who joined in a "revolutionary attempt" as an act of "desperation." Unless if they are really progressive and realistic in the course of action, most of the ruling class are running after privileges than realizing the aspirations of the masses, of calling for compromises than giving up themselves to the will of the people, their so called "revolt" for sure in the eyes of the people still trapped in the dungeon of the system is just a mere "opportunism" to the privileged and an "illusion" to the rest of the working majority! What kind of revolution is that when there is no regulation of private sector by the people? As well as absolute confiscation of properties by the people from the ruling class? What kind of revolution is that when large remnants of status quo remained still? An absolute reaction does not conduct an absolute reaction for the reaction, was and is remain reaction! Except the fact that the status quo they preserve is oppressive in the eyes of the majority they consider as they subjects, the worst? Corrupted by the rotten remains of its past. And willing to accept the consequences from accepting themselves to the will of the people to rectification and purging themselves from their misdeeds and errors-all in order to become a part again of the revolutionary society.
In addition to that,
Diverting the idea of the revolution is another way for the ruling class to "join in" and "grab" from the rest. The 1986 revolution, according to some sources stated, was in fact an attempt to become a bloodier armed mass strike coupled with civil disobedience against the status quo, but it became a "peaceful" as the opportunist ruling class, allegedly supported by US imperialist elements tend to use the military also to oppose the ruling class; and at the same time other petit bourgeois reformists tend to support the soldiers and at the same time pushing for a peaceful type of "revolution" as they say. For me, the supposed "mass strike" may likely to be called as a revolution since people are supposed to be angry against a particular regime that was oppressive, and therefore there might be martyrs and people charging against the soldiers from every road leading to Manila! Its just the ruling class and its cohorts tend to change the topic and making it in a different situation, especially with the support from an outsider.
Back to the topic,
The opportunism, especially of the ruling class as "revolutionaries" during 1986 and 2001, or even 1899 in the Philippines signifies that they tried to grab the revolutionary power from the masses who literally started it, who were experiencing challenges and started to vent anger into the ones who oppress. Somehow the ruling class, being opportunist and running after their privileges barely managed to create some mere "substitutes", an ersatz disguised as "revolutionary goals" and "practises" to gain support by the majority. Using excessive proletarian tongue if possible to succeed their want. Just like the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and despite its name, that program proved to be a failure. But that ersatz to the peasants, although being "extended" with some "reforms" (as what opportunists and petit-bourgeois reformists say) cannot entirely cater to the rest of the landless peasants and farmworkers, who are now really seeking for a real agrarian reform program and not of an ersatz agrarian reform like CARP.
Anything "Revolutionary" from the ruling class is merely an ersatz one. Only to find it as impossible to be set despite invoking the past victories then bannering it. For me, the peasants, workers, and other progressives hath started to rise up and trying to fight against the system as they could; while the ruling class and its cohorts continue to invoke and join into the procession of their own "ghosts" to counter the anger of the poor. Only to end up getting beaten as the people expose their reactionary attitude and behaviour despite their sugar sweet "revolutionary" words coming from their "reactionary" mouths.