40 years of Philippine Society and Revolution Interview with Comrade Jose Maria Sison (Amado Guerrero)

40 years of Philippine Society and Revolution Interview
with Comrade Jose Maria Sison (Amado Guerrero)*

It has been 40 years since the Central Publishing House of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) first published Philippine Society and Revolution (PSR). In the past 40 years, PSR has served as the CPP's principal reference and guide in laying down the basic principles of the two-stage revolution in the Philippines based on the analysis of concrete conditions of the semicolonial and semifeudal system. To commemorate the anniversary of PSR and reaffirm the principles it laid down, Ang Bayan decided to interview Comrade Jose Ma. Sison who, as CPP founding chair Amado Guerrero was the principal author of the PSR.

1. Can you relate to our readers certain historical facts about PSR? When did you start writing it? Who were involved in the research and writing? When was it first published and in what form? To your knowledge, how many times has the book been printed?

Jose Maria Sison (JMS): I wrote it soon after the launching of the people's war and on the eve of the First Quarter Storm of 1970. I started writing and finished it in the third quarter of 1969. Some comrades in the EC/CC like Charlie del Rosario and Monico Atienza brought me the reference materials that I needed. When I finished the rough draft around August 1969, I gave it to Julie de Lima and other individuals and the members of the Central Committee to gather their suggestions and comments.

The first edition of PSR was published in mimeographed form in October 1969, a copy of which was submitted for publication in the Philippine Collegian under the title Philippine Crisis and Revolution (this can be considered the second edition). Pulang Tala Publications published the third edition and Ta Kung Pao of Hongkong, the fourth edition in 1970. The fifth and sixth editions in English and Pilipino were mimeographed by the CPP Central Publishing House in 1971. In 1977, the Katipunan ng Demokratikong Pilipino published the seventh edition in the US. This can be considered the fourth edition if the mimeographed editions are excluded.

Other editions were released after my capture in 1977. There were even German and Turkish translations and a comics edition.

2. PSR is one of the most important Marxist-Leninist theoretical works of the revolutionary movement in the Philippines. What theoretical challenges faced its writing? What do you think are the key contributions of PSR to the theory of revolution in the Philippines? Has it made any contribution to theory that is relevant beyond the practice of the Philippine revolution?

JMS: The biggest theoretical challenge was the application of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought to Philippine history and circumstances. It necessitated the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. The key contributions of PSR are its characterization of Philippine society as semicolonial and semifeudal and the corresponding line of national and democratic revolution under the leadership of the working class.

In this regard, PSR specified the allied classes (workers, peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie) and the class enemies (big compradors and landlords) in the new democratic revolution. It also laid down the principal task: national liberation and democratic revolution. It defined as well the stages of the Philippine revolution: people's new democracy and socialism.

3. Before PSR, there were Struggle for National Democracy (SND) and the document "Rectify Errors, Rebuild the Party" (RERP) which were among the first major theoretical works of the national democratic movement in the Philippines. Can you recount the history of the development of the theory of Philippine revolution up to the publication of PSR in 1970?

JMS: The publication of SND and the RERP document was necessary and essential. SND paved the way for the exposition of the people's basic problems and the possible revolutionary solution in legal and persuasive language. It was in line with the tradition of the old democratic revolution of 1896 and the new democratic revolution under the leadership of the working class. It was based on the prevailing conditions and needs of the Filipino people, especially the toiling masses.

RERP was seminal in the analysis of the experience of the old merger party of the Communist and Socialist Parties. It exposed the errors and weaknesses which led to the failure of the revolution. It had therefore laid down what must be done in order to realize the ideological, political and organizational requirements to rebuild the revolutionary party of the proletariat, the people's army and the united front and to rekindle and advance the revolution towards victory.

4. What was the biggest contribution of PSR to the course of the Philippine revolution in the past 40 years? What role did it play in the different stages of development of the Philippine revolution?

JMS: PSR greatly strengthened the general line earlier laid down by the Party Constitution and the Program for a People's Democratic Revolution. Since the first year of the people's war up to the present, PSR has played a key role in shedding light about the history, the basic problems and the revolutionary solution of the Filipino people.

PSR has played such an important role in every stage of the revolution. PSR further enlightens with the help of recent writings based on the advances of the revolution and the worsening of the crisis of the rotten sytem. PSR has been an effective tool of the Party in raising the consciousness and fighting will of Party members and mass activists.

5. The fourth edition of PSR included "Specific Characteristics of Our People's War" and "Our Urgent Tasks" which emphasized the theoretical importance of this document. What other theoretical works of the CPP do you think have equal weight and significance in terms of the development of the theory of revolution in the Philippines?

JMS: The fourth edition (if the three mimeographed editions are not counted) indeed emphasized the theoretical importance of the two supplementary documents, which in turn further enhanced PSR. The documents of similar importance and significance in the development of the theory of revolution in the Philippines are "On the Mode of Production in the Philippines" (1983), "Philippine Crisis and Revolution" (1986), "Stand for Socialism Against Modern Revisionism" (1992) and "Reaffirm Our Basic Principles and Rectify the Errors" (1992), the basic documents of the Second Great Rectification Movement, and basic documents against the policy of neoliberal globalization and other offensives of imperialism.

6. It has been over 40 years since the PSR was first published. How would you compare Philippine society today to the conditions then? Do you think PSR remains an effective guide for the Philippine revolution? Do you see a need for a new edition, revision or supplement to PSR?

JMS: The continuing semicolonial and semifeudal conditions are further worsening and deepening. Thus, PSR remains an effective guide for the Philippine national and democratic revolution. The Party continues to issue new editions of PSR and supplement it with new related documents. However, I am tempted to write a new edition with expanded text dealing with the past four decades.

7. How can PSR further benefit the current stage of the revolution, especially in line with the CPP's call to achieve the strategic stalemate in five years? What do you think are the crucial issues that have to be studied by Philippine revolutionaries in order to further invigorate the different fields of struggle?

JMS: Always review PSR and apply it to current circumstances and events. Under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought (or Maoism), PSR explains why the people's war is necessary and how to advance it in stages: from the strategic defensive to the strategic stalemate and from the strategic stalemate to the strategic offensive. PSR also laid down the need to fulfill the political requirements in order to advance the people's war from one stage to the next.

The Party must be strengthened ideologically, politically and organizationally. The people's army must be strengthened through armed struggle, agrarian revolution and the building of the mass base and organs of political power. There must be a united front policy involving certain types of alliances: the basic worker-peasant alliance, the progressive alliance of the toiling masses and the urban petty bourgeoisie, the patriotic alliance of the progressive classes and the national bourgeoisie and the temporary and unstable alliance with reactionaries fighting the enemy.


* Url:http://theprwcblogs.blogspot.com/2010/11/40-years-of-philippine-society-and.html

Independence Day Ramblings

Independence Day Ramblings

It all started with raising the National cuadricolour of Red, White, Royal Blue and Gold into the sky as the national anthem being played. People somehow are quite joyful as the patriotic fever seemingly give off its first bouts.

But then,
As the festivity continues, with floats featuring the braggings of the second female President-cum-trying hard Bonapartist like the "BEAT THE ODDS" program again trying to become the centerpiece of the festivity, unveiling the adminitration's spending its money on those floats rather pursuing development in force.

The entire event also considered a mere bannering of "patriotism" rather than seriously emphasising it. In a country wherein the society is semifeudal and semicolonial, Independence seemed to be a hollow phrase as the elite, comprising the 1% of the society controlled the entire 99% majority, as well as the interference of the US and other imperialist countries in domestic affairs-including "talks" with the newly elected President Noynoy Aquino. All of these are rather a mockery of recognizing independence but then recognizing the supremacy of a nation once acted as a colonizer.

In addition to that,
I even notice how our culture, "ghettoised" in character seemingly tried much to vent a smattering of patriotic fervor to the people. From utilizing the patriotic colours to creating Filipino stereotypes for foreign tastes, it evenly negates the Pilipino, its authenticity, and its supposed appearance as a modern being not as a lumpen beggar. As according to the writeup "A MONGREL CULTURE?"
"...In a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society, its a fact that the ruling class, accepting the wishes of the imperialists, advocates much of a foreign culture-whether it is American, European, Japanese, Korean, and even Chinese. They tried much to lessen native influences to a museum type, a cultural zoo in which every viewer-especially a foreigner, stereotypically sees and thinks of it as that, worse as all Filipinos became desensitized, reificated and thinking of it anything as common, a part of our society, not noticing that they, or rather say we are being decieved by their wishes-of joining the "flow" not noticing that we are getting drowned..."

True, since Pilipinos nowadays becoming reified, desensitized, thinking that foreign culture is for everyday life whilst its own only to be bannered, for special occasions-unless if you are a native who opted using modern equipment to vent patriotic fervor and utilizing skills for making Pilipino culture natively modern instead of the current trend which is too western than eastern.

And again, according to the same writeup, that seemingly connected to the "Independence Day" theme:
"...And since I spoke of independence, I even think that despite independence, the rotten system, instead of encouraging individuals to unite and revive native culture and making it modernised and mass based, it end up being franchised by their cohorts, of using mass media to create instant culture that carries apathy to the people rather than making culture closer and aligned to social realities, all despite their dashes of patriotism like those of Francis Magalona, or even the Black Eyed Peas and of Jabbawockeez-just because of having a Filipino in it. But then, despite making closer to the people, it remains much aligned to the culture wherein different from the real culture of the masses, or in an insulting phrase (sorry for that) of encouraging a monger culture-of making Filipinos act like Blacks than to act as Pilipinos!"
Well...
No offense but, these words somehow wanted a culture "out of sweat and tears" than a culture "in an instant". Of seeing patriotism be flourished and be modernised, molded according to the ideas and aspirations of the people both past and present gearing towards the future. And so is the independence of this forsaken state-not a state for you to brag, but for you to stay and seriously live in and enjoy, preserve, and enrich its wonder.

But how?
Fight for National Democracy, bring back the power to the people who emanates sovereignty and the creators of the society.

INTERVIEW WITH PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON ON THE 2010 ELECTIONS IN THE AFTERMATH

INTERVIEW WITH PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON
ON THE 2010 ELECTIONS IN THE AFTERMATH*
By D. L. Mondelo
Correspondent, Bulatlat
22 May 2010

1. What can you say about the conduct of the 2010 elections?


Jose Ma. Sison (JMS): The conduct of the 2010 elections shows the rottenness of the US-dominated ruling system of big compradors and landlords. It was a process dominated by the coalitions, parties and candidates of the reactionary ruling classes. Beforehand, it excluded the leaders of the working people who were repressed or who were without campaign funds. It was merely a personality- based contest of the political agents of the same exploiting classes.

They did not offer any strong differences in terms of program. They mouthed slogans against poverty and corruption and the need for change. But they said nothing about overcoming the three monsters of foreign monopoly capitalism, domestic feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism which exploit, impoverish and oppress the people. They gave no serious attention to the worsening crisis of the domestic ruling system and the world capitalist system.

The bilateral alliance of Makabayan and the Nacionalista Party (NP) put forward a common program for land reform, food self-reliance and rural development, expansion of domestic manufacturing and job opportunities, respect for human rights, peace negotiations, ecological protection, review of the Visiting Forces Agreement and independent foreign policy. But the NP downplayed the program.

The biggest winners in the elections were those who attacked the hated Arroyo regime and who benefited most from the biggest collection of campaign money from the big foreign and local businessmen. At the beginning of the campaign, the Liberal Party pretended to rely on piso-piso contributions but it eventually collected and used the biggest amount of campaign money from the big businessmen, thus surpassing the Nacionalista Party in spending.

The unbelievably large leads of Noynoy Aquino over Estrada and Villar have aroused the inquiries into whether the election results were pre-programmed. There are reports that the foreign controllers of the automated system and the Kamag-anak Inc. were able to pre-program the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections. Complaints against poll irregularities are widespread and cast doubts on the veracity of the vote count


2. Can you explain further the victory of Noynoy Aquino?


JMS: Let us take in chronological order the factors that allowed Noynoy Aquino to get ahead of his principal rivals, especially Villar who appeared to be the No. 1 presidential candidate before Cory Aquino died and before Noynoy decided to run for the presidency.

Noynoy Aquino had a clever and agile set of propagandists who had a clear strategic line. To obscure his involvement in the Hacienda Luisita massacre and his palaboy record as a non-achiever in the Lower House and Senate , he was touted as the upright heir of his parents and as a moral crusader against corruption and he attacked the corruption of the Arroyo regime in order to ride on the widespread and bitter anti-Arroyo sentiment of the people.

Villar did not attack Arroyo in a strong way and became vulnerable to the Villaroyo line or charge of being the secret candidate of Arroyo. In the early part of April, the results of two major survey polls done by firms owned and controlled by Aquino relatives and friends were accordingly used to bring down Villar in the mass media. The precipitous decline of Villar was further aggravated subsequently by the attacks from Estrada and Enrile about the 2007 initial public offering of the shares of stocks of the Villar real estate company.

Of all the reactionary parties, the Liberal Party raised the biggest amount of campaign money to surpass the volume of pro-Villar informercials in both TV and radio and other forms of propaganda. The Villar money was eventually no match to the contributions from Razon, Pangilinan, Ayala and other bigshots of the Makati Busines Club and from the foreign big businessmen. The Arroyo couple did not deliver to the Lakas presidential candidate the money that they had collected for the campaign.

There are indications that Noynoy Aquino was able to take incredibly big leads over Estrada and Villar because of pre-programming of the vote count. This is the biggest possible form of cheating and the most difficult to prove in contrast to the anomalous shading of the ovals before and during the elections in specific localities. The automated electoral system does not prevent the cheating tactics of the past but in fact allows cheating in a bigger and faster way.


3. What did the electoral campaign and results reveal about the Makabayan and the progressive party list groups?


JMS: Makabayan and the progressive party list groups proved themselves outstanding in putting forward the national and democratic demands of the people. They also got far more votes than any of the pseudo-progressive grouplets. Makabayan got nearly ten per cent of the actual nationwide voters for each of its two senatorial candidates, Satur Ocampo and Liza Maza. And all together the progressive party list groups also got nearly ten per cent. I believe that Makabayan and the progressive party list groups had more than 10 percent of the electorate, if not for the vote shaving by the pre-programmers.

Most of the votes for Villar are equivalent to the basic electoral base of Makabayan and the progressive party list groups. Definitely, Villar benefited more from the NP-Makabayan alliance than Makabayan did. But by his refusal to denounce the Arroyo regime as strongly as did Aquino and Estrada, Villar prejudiced not only himself but also his Makabayan teammates. It preventedthe Makabayan senatorial candidates from benefiting from the anti-Arroyo sentiment and increasing their votes beyond their basic electoral base.

However, the progressive party list groups remain a significant bloc with a high potential as a swing force within the reactionary congress. Makabayan could have been a more effective force had it been able to build itself as a party from top to bottom, with organs, units and candidates at every level long before the elections. Before the elections, Makabayan had limited capacity for negotiating with major parties. It was limited to pushing only two senatorial candidates and some candidates here and there at lower levels when it made an alliance with the NP.

The NP was publicly known as the only major party willing to have an alliance and share campaign resources. But its leadership obviously monopolized decisions over the downplaying of the program, the strategy of the campaign, the deployment of resources and other important matters. If it had a strong organization of its own, Makabayan could have been more assertive and could have fared better in an alliance with the NP.

While Makabayan had difficulties in ensuring the election of its two senatorial candidates, the progressive party list groups had far better chances in having more than ten of its nominees elected as members of Congress than Makabayan. But it is highly probable that the preprogrammers of the results of the elections were determined to cut down the number of winners among the nominees of the progressive party list groups.

During the electoral campaign, barefaced anti-communists and the pseudo-progressives tried to Red bait and equate Makabayan and the progressive party list groups with the CPP. And after the elections, they would mock the CPP as having failed to make any big electoral advance. The public knows that revolutionary forces are not equivalent to any electoral party. They measure their success in terms of increasing the revolutionary mass base and armed strength in the people's war and not in terms of taking seats within the reactionary government.


4. What do you expect of the presidency of Benigno Aquino Jr.?


JMS: The Aquino regime will pursue basically the same exploitative and oppressive policies dictated to the Arroyo regime by US imperialism. It will not solve but will aggravate the problems of the Filipino people, such as foreign monopoly capitalism, domestic feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism.

The Aquino regime will continue to carry out liberalization, privatization, deregulation, curtailment of social rights, reduction of social services and increased taxation at the expense of the people under the US-dictated policy of free market globalization. US troops will continue to maintain forward stations and engage in military intervention under the pretext of combating terrorism. The Aquino regime will continue the US-dictated Oplan Bantay Laya under a new name and will generate a new wave of human rights violations

US and foreign banks and corporations will continue to extract superprofits and plunder the country. The Aquino regime will be grossly incapable of stopping the widening trade and budgetary deficits and the mounting debt burden. The fiscal and sovereign debt crisis will shake the Philippine economy from the base to the rafter and will be used by the foreign banks and corporations to further bend the Philippines.

As during the Cory Aquino administration, the Kamag-Anak Inc. will be at the head of big landlord and big comprador operations. While the regime might still tout a bogus land reform program, the Cojuangco-Aquinos intend to use layers of corporations to frustrate land reform in Hacienda Luisita and other landed estate. They are poised to benefit greatly from the corrupt practices of the high bureaucrat and big comprador.

The Aquino regime will try to broaden its support f from various reactionary parties in Congress, including the Lakas-Kampi party of Arroyo. But the worsening socio-economic crisis of the ruling system will tend to intensify the political contradictions among the reactionaries. There will be rising waves of legal mass protests and revolutionary resistance by the broad masses of the people. Ever aggravating the basic problems of the Filipino people, the Aquino regime will use brute force in a futile attempt to suppress the resistance of the people


5. Would the Aquino regime pursue peace negotiations with the revolutionary forces represented by the National Front of the Philippines?


JMS: It may or may not. It remains to be seen whether it is seriously interested in peace negotiations. It can easily pretend to be for peace negotiations like the Arroyo regime did. But it can set preconditions and use various tactics in order to avoid complying with The Hague Joint Declaration of 1992 and the subsequent agreements and thereby prevent the peace negotiations from addressing the roots of armed conflict through, social, economic and political reforms.

The same military hawks and clerico-fascists who undermined and hampered peace negotiations with the NDFP during the time of Arroyo are now with the Aquino regime. The puppet president and his security advisers get guidance from the US security policy of counterinsurgency and anti-terrorism so-called and take detailed instructions from various US agencies represented in the US country team.

I will not be surprised if instead of agreeing to resume the peace negotiations, comply with the existing agreements and begin concentrated negotiations on social and economic reforms the Aquino regime would set preconditions like indefinite ceasefire and front-loading the end of hostilities in vainly seeking the self-disintegration and pacification of the revolutionary movement.

According to the US Counterinsurgency Guide, the policy dictate of the US is for the puppet government to disarm, dismantle and reintegrate the revolutionary forces or in other words to destroy, coopt or reduce them to irrelevance or inconsequentiality. The US imperialists and their puppets conjure the illusion of peace negotiations at the national level if only to push further sham localized peace talks with their own agents and undertake palliative or band-aid measures in localities in order to deceive the people and to escalate military campaigns of suppression.

The imperialists and their puppets are also trying a new tack like pacifying or appeasing the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and other Moro revolutionary groups with foreign funds in order to unleash more military forces against the revolutionary forces of the NDFP. But the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army have already issued comprehensive statements for advancing the strategic defensive to the strategic stalemate in the people's war within the next five years.


*Url: http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2010/05/22/campaign-contributions-pre-programming-key-to-aquino-victory-sison/

"Change" as what the wingnuts say

"Change" as what the wingnuts say

"The conservative defence of tradition 'admits' of change, that suggest 'growth' and 'renovation' than 'construction' and 'innovation'."

These are the words the book "Ideals and Ideologues of modern politics" by Mark N. Hagopian said regarding the conservative's stance on change. These words, typically speaking, spoke of favoring it within limits, but not all as conservatives, or other words, wingnuts insist on tradition and pessimistically think much of progression-even opposing it as contrary to their belief in order as "harmonious" and "peaceful." Worse is that they insist much in policies that, benefit much in their "ideals" but contrary to the aspirations of the people, and yet advocating "change" as what the book said?

Well...
To a progressive, I really think much of the wingnuts, especially those who banner words like "freedom" and "democracy" as stupid and hollow, meaningless except countering the left in every hallway. They took time bannering it, condemning the left as enemy of reason and whatsoever, but then, as we look closer, they are simply doing so while in fact seriously doubting the idea of freedom and democracy as they preferred the age old conservative ideas of "law," "order," "tradition," and worse "religion." Like those in Spain during the Franco era and in Croatia during WW2.

And so is the hollow phrase called "change," as what the wingnuts banner it. AS they, spending much time defending the rotten social order and utilizing a smattering of populist rhetoric, reading both Mussolini, the Bible and Ayn Rand only to create meaningless measures guised as "reforms" to do so, while maintaining the ideals of "aristocracy," the reactionary motion of "authority," "tradition," "pessimism," and even "clericalism," as concept of their order.

At the same time, as I expected, I read the words lord Falkland said:
"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
Wingnuts, especially those who insist much on tradition and even those who banner "freedom" and "democracy" accepted it as they insist much on "order," and yet how come they do "change" and bannering, if not advocating it? I even read the vision of a right-wing "pro democracy movement" that spoke of "an advocate for the realization of progressive, responsible and organized democracy," and yet the ones behind are those of wingnuts spreading less of "innovation" and more of "renovation?" What is democracy anyway? To a wingnut, it is a hollowed phrase to be bannered. And as what the great Lenin said about their democracy, of freedom?
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
And if that's the case, then freedom and democracy for the wingnut is the same as the slave owners, the aristocrats wanted, contenting in their past than paving way to the future!

True, as I may expect of them as their stances, especially advocating change, of liberty seemed contradicting to their ideals as I may say, that they insist in "change" while preserving the rotten social order? And even speaking it with "renovation" and "growth" for the nation like those of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and Spencer? Bah! Too stupid as they, in fact utilizing their desperate populist rhetoric to gain supporters and venting off illusions like those of Martov to counter the left. Their brand of change, progression is meaningless for their foundations rooted through the years curbed them, especially as what Lord Falkland, or the Ultramontanes, Carlistas, shunned things like those and even pushing to stop all in the name of preserving the "order of things" and even willing to foster growth of their meaningless renaissance like Chiang Kai Shek just to counter Mao Zedong!

And as I spoke of that old Chiang, he was an example of a conservative who bannered "change through renovation" while in fact "using" to counter Mao Zedong. His predecessor, Sun Yat-Sen really advocated change in whole China, speaking of freedom, democracy, and social justice to all courtesy of his "three people's principles" and encouraging people to fight against the Manchurians who ruled the entire country centuries ago.
Most students, especially radicals comprising the majority of the revolution simply joined the struggle also for other reasons like dismantling the age-old rotten system, pushing through renovation and innovation, and rebuilding China using science and technology like those of the May 4th movement and of the works of Lu Xun. They are also against unfair portions of traditions, like those of Confucius, foot binding, queue, kowtowing, caning and the like.
But Chiang Kai-Shek, like those of the conservatives who "hijacked" the revolution and of the Guomindang itself "museumified" change while step-by-step reviving the age-old, neo-Confucian, ideals what the majority of Sun Yat-Sen's followers shunned, from the faction led by Chiang Soong Ching-ling to Mao Zedong, who, also a soldier of the 1912 revolt and a communist who joined the Guomindang after the Sun-Joffe manifesto before becoming a leader of the communist party and the whole China itself-and opposing Chiang's measures that seemed contrary to the ideals of "freedom, democracy and social justice" as the late Sun envisioned, and according to him, referring to the Guomindang and Chiang:
"There are many stubborn element, graduates in the specialty schools of stubbornness. They are stubborn today, they will be stubborn tomorrow, and they will be stubborn the day after tomorrow. What is stubbornness (huan'gu)? Gu is to be stiff. Huan is to not progress: not today, nor tomorrow, nor they day after tomorrow. People like that are called the stubborn elements. It is not an easy thing to make the stubborn elements listen to our words."
And thus,
It also shows how wingnuts are, as what Mao said, "stubborn" and yet bannering the words like "change," "innovation," "freedom," "democracy," and the like, using it for cosmetic purposes while in fact disagreeing it, stubbornly disagreeing it to the core as what they do so with the cause of defending their concept of "tradition" and "order."

So what is change anyway? Like democracy and freedom, a hollowed meaningless phrase bannered by those hostile of progression and aligned with reaction.

Score one for the team

Score one for the team*
Made last May 13 2010
by Anton Dulce

I am a marginalized sector.

Yep, you heard me correctly. I believe that me, myself, and I, qualify as a marginalized sector in our country today. If Q.C politician Bernadette Herrera could convert her political machinery into the partylist group BH (what a coincidence, eh?), then I, an ordinary Filipino, could also count as a marginalized sector.

I could also claim to represent my hometown/provinces, even if I don’t reside in it like Dato Arroyo, and run under a partylist like Ako C-SIQ (Ako Camarines Sur-Isabela-Q.C).

Or I could represent any sector I choose at random. If the old pedophiles at the COMELEC can claim that Mikey Arroyo can represent security guards and tricycle drivers, then I can certainly pass for a representative of fishball vendors (I am one of their steady patrons), bus drivers and conductors (I prefer buses over jeeps), computer sellers (hello LPGMA?), and scientists (AGHAM Partylist doesn’t have a single scientist in their roster).

Or since religious cults like Iglesia ni Cristo and El Shaddai now qualify as marginalized sectors, I can establish a partylist using my fans and fanatics. And I’ll claim that it represents “pro-life advocates”, “defenders of the institution of the Family”, and other right-wing bullshit.

If you are reading this article, chances are you voted for a partylist group last Monday. Chances are, you voted for any of the progressive partylist groups in the race: the original Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, the Gabriela Women’s Party, KABATAAN, ACT Teachers, Katribu, and Akap Bata.

You could have also voted for other less-militant, but definitely non-dubious, partylist groups like CIBAC, Ang Ladlad, PEP, etc.

Regardless, we have been screwed by traditional politicians who have decided to fuck the partylist system.

First, there are the local politicians who have become so disreputable that they cannot win in their constituencies but still command a good political machinery. Instead of splitting the vote in his/her area, he/she could still run under a partylist, and win most of the votes of his/her area constituency. Some examples include Cagayan-Isabela’s LPGMA, Quezon City’s BH and PCL, and Zambales’ AVE.

Second are vested-interest groups, as I’ve already mentioned before, outside of traditional politicians.

Third, is the Arroyo Administration and its attempts to keep Gloria Arroyo’s Prime Minister dreams alive. The representatives of Ako Bicol, A-Teacher, Butil, ABC, YACAP, Kasangga, Ang Galing Pinoy, ANAD, and Agbiag can be the “swing vote” which will help Gloria become our first post-Marcos PM.

Fourth are the ruling elites in general and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. They hate the left-leaning partylist groups under the MAKABAYAN Coalition. In their nine years of existence (Bayan Muna was founded in 2001), they have consistently exposed the wrongdoings of the Arroyo Administration, including abuses and corruption by the military. It is the wet dream of every trapo to have these partylist groups removed by any means possible. By fielding a lot of partylist groups, they increase the total number of votes cast for partylists, thus increasing the raw number representing the 2% minimum, thus making it all but impossible for any partylist group to get in Congress.

To every Filipino voter, especially those who still have faith in elections, we have been screwed once again. The question is, will you just bend over and let them? Or will you finally decide to kick them in the nuts?

If you choose the latter, here are some things you can do:

1. Read more about the issue. Poll watchdog group Kontra Daya has a list of bogus partylist groups that have been discovered so far. It also has an article on those who are likely to make it in the next Congress. Workers’ group KMU also has an analysis on the “unbelievable” numbers of the partylist poll.

2. Spread the word. Tell everyone you know about the issue. Personally talk to them, text, email, etc. Of course, there’s the ever-useful Facebook, Twitter, Plurk, Tumblr, etc. The more people are aware of the issue, the more people are willing to take action.

3. Get ready to take action. Make some noise. Yes, we can easily make some noise online. But what can really pressure the COMELEC into taking action is the sight of hundreds, or even thousands, of angry voters and citizens outside their main office in Manila. Take note, the PUP Administration has been more open to negotiations and dialogues with concerned PUP students since the now-famous student actions last March. The COMELEC should get the same feeling: that we, concerned Filipinos, are right about the boiling point.

More likely than not, you are feeling sad about this elections. Even if you are for Noynoy, you probably dislike the senatorial race results. But let’s not make it a total loss for our team, The People. Let’s get one point. Let’s knockout these dubious partylists.

*http://radulce.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/score-one-for-the-team/

The need for a Cultural Revolution

The need for a Cultural Revolution
Prof. Jose Ma. Sison
Speech delivered at the U.P. Baguio College, Baguio City, on September 30, 1966;
sponsored by the U.P. Baguio Student Council.

TO HAVE A SCIENTIFIC VIEW OF CULTURE as we should, we need to understand first of all that culture is a superstructure thatrests upon a material basis.

The ideas, institutions and all cultural patterns are dependent on the material mode of existence of a society. These change as all societies are subject to
change. There is no permanent society or culture.

The cultural balance, pattern or synthesis that exists in a society at a given historical stage is nothing but the unity of opposites - the unity of opposite cultural forces. This unity is always a temporary balance subject to the dynamism of opposites. The progressive force always outgrows and breaks the old framework which the reactionary force always tries to preserve.

Just as revolution is inevitable in politico-economic relations, revolution is inevitable in culture. A cultural revolution, as a matter of fact, is a necessary aspect of the politico-economic revolution.

In the history of mankind, it can easily be seen that even before the full development of the politico-economic power of an ascendant social class, a cultural revolution provides it with the thoughts and motives that serve as the effective guide to action and further action. A rising class achieves what we call its class consciousness before it actually establishes its own state power and replaces the old state power and its vestiges.

Long before the liberal revolution of Europe dealt the most effective political blows against feudal power in the 17th and 18th century, a cultural revolution took shape in the Renaissance which asserted secular thinking and freedom of thought. The men of the Renaissance questioned the clerical hegemony over culture and learning and they clarified the ideals and values that were still to become truly dominant later when the unity of church and state was to be broken and replaced by the modern bourgeois state.

The successful revolution of the bourgeoisie in the West was prepared and guided by a cultural revolution.

In our country, there had to be a propaganda movement - the assertion of new ideas and values - before there developed the actual beginnings of the Philippine revolution that fell under the class leadership of the ilustrados or the liberal bourgeoisie that surrounded Aguinaldo.

In this Propaganda Movement, Dr. Jose Rizal made patriotic annotations on Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas with the view of demonstrating that before the coming of Spanish colonialism there was an indigenous culture that the indios could be proud of. This was clearly an anti-colonial attempt not only to show up the racial arrogance of those who belittled our people but also to develop an awareness of a national culture.

Not to be carried away by chauvinism, Dr. Jose Rizal further presented the crisis of colonial culture in the Philippines and the prospects of a national culture in terms of the liberal ideas and values of Europe which he believed could be applied in the concrete experience of his people, inasmuch as there was already the emergence of the ilustrados like Crisostomo Ibarra and businessmen like Capitan Tiago.

The two novels, Noli and Fili, and his essays, the "Indolence of the Filipinos" and "The Philippines A Century Hence", were written in furtherance of a national democratic cultural revolution. It was a revolution in the sense that it contraposed national culture to the colonial culture of which the friars were the chief defenders.

It was in this same spirit that the participants of the Propaganda Movement wrote as Marcelo H. del Pilar did, orated as Graciano Lopez Jaena did and painted as Juan Luna did.

All of them exposed the exploitation and brutalization of our people, thus paving the way for the clear call for separation from Spain by the Katipunan.

The Katipunan, which was a vigorously separatist movement and which served as the nucleus of a new national political community carried forward into revolutionary action the aspiration for a national democratic culture, integrating democratic concepts with the indigenous conditions.

From Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto to Apolinario Mabini and Antonio Luna, the fire of cultural revolution rose higher and higher and shone with the political ideas that guided the Philippine Revolution of 1896.

What came to be considered our national culture in the beginning was the integration of modern political ideas and indigenous conditions. The emergence of that national culture was essentially a political phenomenon; a national culture arose in direct and necessary opposition to the colonial and clerical culture which exploited and brutalized our people. An awareness of national culture spread among the Filipino people as fast as national sentiment and consciousness spread among them. The political awareness of a national community reintegrated the cultural patterns in the provinces, surpassing both the magical barangay culture of pre-Hispanic times and the feudal Christian culture under Spanish domination. The desire for a modern national democratic society outmoded the feudal society developed by the conquistadores from the primitive rule of the rajahs and the datus who submitted themselves as local puppets of the foreign dispensation.

Our people's aspiration for national democracy and for a modern culture of the same cast were, unfortunately, frustrated by the coming of U.S. imperialism

Taking advantage of the naivete and compromising character of our ilustrado or liberal bourgeois leaders, the U.S. imperialists easily insinuated themselves into our country by pretending to give aid to our efforts to free our motherland. After all, did not the patriots of the Propaganda Movement praise so much the ideas of Jefferson, the American Declaration of Independence and the American struggle against British colonialism?

Alas, little was it realized that the American revolution, which we still remember today for its national democratic ideals, had taken the path of monopoly capitalist development and had become an imperialist power greedy for colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Though it shouted loud its slogans of bringing democracy and Christianity to the Philippines, as required by a supposed divine mandate received by President McKinley in his dream, it came to suppress the First Philippine Republic and the Malolos Constitution which embodied our people's national democratic aspirations.

As efficiently as the Spaniards were in suppressing the rich cultural achievements of our ancestors, the U.S. imperialists went about their work of brutally suppressing any manifestation of patriotism by the Filipino people. Today, despite the current horror of the U.S. imperialist war of aggression in Vietnam, many still have the illusion that the U.S. imperialists are smart, subtle and smooth operators. But what is more cruel and crude than the murder of more than 250,000 Filipinos to achieve U.S. imperialist conquest of the Philippines, as was done in the Filipino-American War of 1899-1902?

What is more rude and inconsiderate than the all-out imperialist attempt during the first decade of this century to censor and suppress newspapers, drama, poetry, and other cultural efforts which manifested Filipino patriotism and national democratic aspirations? The mere display of the Philippine flag was enough ground for a Filipino to be punished for sedition.

Until today, many of our youth and elders are deprive of the memory of the national democratic struggle of our people. They have been made to forget. How is this possible even if there seems to be no more open coercion to prevent us from reviewing our national history?

The history of mankind shows that state power and any appearance of stability in any class society are sustained by the force of arms and other coercive means. However, in so far as forgetting one's history is concerned, control of the means of cultural development is necessary to get such a result. A state, such as one that is imperialist, does not only have the instruments for coercion but also the instruments for persuasion.

The first decisive step taken by the U.S. government in order to develop its cultural and educational control over the Philippines was to impose the English language as the medium of instruction and as the official language. On the national scale, a foreign language became the first language in government and business. English merely replaced Spanish as the vehicle of the foreign power dominating us.

A foreign language may widen our cultural horizons, opening our eyes to those parts of the world expressed by that language. But if such a foreign language is forced on our people as has been the case with Spanish and English consecutively, it undermines and destroys the sense of national and social purpose that should be inculcated. Within our nation this foreign language divides the educated and wealthy from the masses. It is not only a measure of class discrimination but also one of national subjugation. It means a cultural constriction represented a long time ago by a Doña Victorina.

The two most significant results of the adoption of English as the first language in the practice of the educated are: first, learning and the professions are alienated from the masses and only serve the ruling class in the incessant class struggle; and second, the Filipino people are actually cut off from other peoples of the world and become victimized by imperialist propaganda.

Some persons might argue that the U.S. government had really intended to spread English among the masses by establishing the public school system. They might, with extreme nostalgia, recall the coming of the Thomasites and what had developed from their work; they might recall how American teachers taught their language better than many Filipino English teachers do today. Foolishly, they are liable to find justification in this for the Peace Corps and other cultural devices meant to perpetuate U.S. imperialist cultural influence among the people.

Those favoring the dominance of imperialist culture at the expense of our developing national culture are treading treasonous grounds. It is already well exposed by history that the public school system has served essentially as a brainwashing machine for cleansing the people's minds of their national democratic aspirations.

The colonially-tutored children came to know more about Washington and Lincoln than about Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto. The national democratic concepts of our national heroes were forgotten and only innocuous anecdotes were told about them.
U.S. imperialism became in their eyes the liberator and not the oppressor of the people in fact.

U.S. imperialism has found more use in our learning of English than we would have found for ourselves if we developed our own national language. We have about three generations of Filipinos spewed by the imperialist brainwashing machine. The general run of these Filipinos have an intellectual orientation, habits, and consumption attitudes subordinated to the so-called American way of life.

In self-criticism, let us accept how much so many of us have become acculturized to U.S. imperialism. To propose that we embark on a genuine program of national industrialization and agrarian revolution is to become extremely "subversive." We are eyed with suspicion by some just because we had dared to challenge the colonial character of the economy and, therefore, of the prevailing politics.

We must propose the Filipinization of schools, the press, radio and other media which are decisive in the conditioning of minds. Because in the hands of foreigners, these constitute direct foreign political power and intervention in our national affairs. These media of education and information immediately direct public opinion and, as it has been since the coming of U.S. imperialism, they have served to keep permanent our cultural as well as our political bondage.

The cultural aggression of U.S. imperialism in our country continues unabated. It takes various forms.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has a decisive say
on educational policies at the highest governmental level. Textbook production and procurement are directed by it in the Department of Education. Multifarious projects designed to execute directly U.S. foreign cultural policy are actually supported by the counterpart peso fund which we provide. To a great extent, the Philippine government is actually subsidizing USIS and other forms of "clasped hands" propaganda.

In a strategic place like the University of the Philippines, General Carlos P. Romulo, continues to open the door to foreign grants from such foundations as Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation. He has sought loans from foreign financing institutions like the World Bank for the purpose of his so-called five-year development program. The naive teacher, student and administrator in my Alma Mater might think that Romulo is doing a fine job for us. But actually, he is doing a fine job for the cause of a cultural imperialism which is in the service of U.S. monopoly capitalism.

We have examine closely the present proliferation of institutes and research projects in the U.P. which are meant only to accommodate the cultural agents of the U.S. government, both American and Filipino. We have examine closely how much U.S. imperialist advice and actual direction has affected and will affect the curricula and materials for study. We have to examine closely what is the whole idea behind the $6 million World Bank loan to the U.P. How, for instance, is this related to present plans and operations of Esso fertilizer, International Harvester, United Fruit and others? We should inquire more critically into the increasing physical presence of U.S. imperialist personnel in the U.P. The U.S. government plans every step it takes in consideration of the monopoly interests it must represent in its foreign policy. Unlike the Philippine government, the U.S. government takes its action in the cultural field on the basis of national interests.

The pensionado mentality among our brighter students, teachers and professors have become so instilled that to promote their career it is a "must" for them to take one American scholarship grant or another. We must be critical of their mentality and we must pursue a new cultural revolution that should put in order the values of those who have fallen prey to this mentality and we must pursue a new cultural revolution that should put in order the values of those who have fallen prey to this mentality. They go to the United States only to learn concepts and cases that do not apply on the concrete experience of our people. Their thinking is completely alienated from the masses and at most they become self-seeking careerists.

There is a worse kind of Filipino professional than the one who finally returns to his country. He is either a doctor, a nurse or some other professional who prefers to stay in the United States as a permanent resident or who tries to become an American citizen. This type of fellow is a subtle betrayer of his country and, in the most extreme cases, a loud-mouthed vilifier of the Filipino people. He goes to a foreign land for higher pay and that is all he is interested in. He does not realize how much social investment has been put into his public schooling from the elementary level and up, and he refuses to serve the people whose taxes have paid for his education. We criticize him but we must as well condemn the government that allows him to desert and that fails to inspire him to work for the people.

While there is an apparent exodus of our bright young men and women to the United States and other lands under the direction of the U.S., the U.S. government ironically sends the Peace Corps and encourages all sorts of projects (many of which are CIA-directed) intending to send young American men and women abroad. Whereas these young Americans are going to our countryside guided by the foreign policy of their government, our bright young men and women are abandoning the countryside to crowd each other out in the city or to take flight entirely from their country.

We refer to the Peace Corps here as a challenge to our youth. These agents of a foreign government are here to perpetuate their government's long-standing policies and cultural influence. They are agents of renewed U.S. imperialist efforts to aggravate their cultural control; thus, they are described as the new Thomasites.

The presence of U.S. imperialist agents of one sort or another in our countryside poses a threat to the development of a national democratic movement among us. Beyond their role of showing pictures of New York and Washington to impressionable children is the counter-insurgency rationale behind their organization.

While these sweet boys and girls in the Peace Corps are now immediately creating goodwill (which is a euphemism for political influence) and performing intelligence functions, these same sweet boys and girls can always come back with new orders from their government. This counter-insurgency aspect and psywar and intelligence value of the Peace Corps are what make it subversive to the interest of a national democratic movement.

The Filipino youth should go to the countryside to learn from the people and to arouse them for the national democratic revolution.

Is Oplan Rafael in effect?

Is Oplan Rafael in effect?*

MANILA, Philippines - Leftist groups on Wednesday warned of an alleged plot to keep President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in power through Oplan Rafael or Retain Arroyo through Failure of Elections.

According to party-list group Bayan Muna, there is a supposed concerted plan to extend Mrs. Arroyo in power, part of which is a failure of election and failure in automation.

The party claimed that the glitch involving the compact flash cards of the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines is part of the plot.

Nacionalista Party (NP) guest candidate Satur Ocampo and Bayan Muna Reps. Teddy Casiño and Neri Colmenares on Wednesday called on all opposition parties and candidates to unite against the alleged plot.

They also pushed for a parallel manual count as a way to prevent massive fraud in next week's polls.

"There is no longer denying the signs that the Macapagal-Arroyo is orchestrating moves to ensure that the May 10 polls will fail. First, there's Norberto Gonzales who continues to spout warnings on failure of elections, then there's the Comelec and the unresolved problems connected to automation. With the polls just around the corner, it's imperative that all opposition forces cross party lines and unite behind the common goal of thwarting the Arroyo government's plans to sabotage the polls," Ocampo said. United vs common enemy

"The last two months have seen the standard-bearers and candidates of the major opposition parties flinging mud at each other and discrediting each others' records. It's about time that the mudslinging stops and for everyone to unite against a common enemy: the Macapagal-Arroyo administration and its schemes to throw a monkey wrench in the polls and if possible extend its stay in power indefinitely. For all of Pres. Arroyo's declarations that she will step down in June, signs are rife that she isn't going to leave the presidency so easily," he said. Ocampo urged opposition parties to unite against all attempts to sabotage the polls. "We owe this to the Filipino people, and it is our duty as members of the opposition. We cannot have a repeat of the 2004 elections that was rigged to the hilt, and we cannot allow Macapagal-Arroyo to remain president by default," he said. In the meantime, Ocampo also said it was time for the Comelec to admit that it is "necessary for a parallel manual count to take place alongside automation."

"There's a million and one possibilities that automation might fail, either due to technical problems or direct and underhanded tactics of the Macapagal-Arroyo electoral fraud machinery. The Comelec should prepare for a parallel manual count as immediate insurance against failure of automation and as a measure against fraud," he said.

Palace: Don't blame us

Presidential spokesman Ricardo Saludo, however, urged critics not to blame the Palace for the technical glitches in the poll automation process.

"Those dragging Malacañang into problems with the vote-counting machines. They should remember that the Comelec is a constitutional body wherein Malacañang cannot interfere and does not interfere in its decisions and operations. Those critics should look at their books and study the Constitution before casting their blame on the Palace. We have been consistent in our support and advocacy for fair, free, orderly and credible elections," Saludo said.

Bayan: What's the Palace up to?

Meanwhile, Renato Reyes, a leader of the leftist political alliance, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), claimed that the call of President Arroyo's election lawyer, Romulo Macalintal, to postpone the polls by 15 days was a dangerous move that could lead to Arroyo staying in power before her term on June 30.

“The proposed postponement begs the question, what is the Palace really up to? Are they now testing the waters for failed polls that will help keep Mrs. Arroyo is power? Are they setting the stage for a holdover?” Reyes Jr. said.

“The Comelec, Smartmatic and the Arroyo regime have put the people between a rock and a hard-place. We are faced with seemingly insurmountable technical and logistical problems in the automated polls this late in the day. Comelec says it can push through with the polls even it can lead to failure. Macalintal says we shouldn’t push through to avoid failure,” Reyes said.

Bayan believes that the "confluence of events will most likely only benefit the incumbent in Malacañang."

“Whichever way you go, given the unfolding events of a failed automated system, the only beneficiary of this chaos is Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. If the polls fail, or if the polls are not credible, she can take advantage of the chaos to strengthen her hold on power and gain leverage over her rivals,” Reyes said.

Overkill deployment

Bayan said it was concerned with the overkill deployment of more than 2,300 soldiers in Metro Manila to so-called election hotspots.

“Are the soldiers there to guard the hotspots, or are they on stand-by to thwart any protest action in the event that there is election fraud and failure? Are the soldiers there to pre-empt any people power against Gloria’s hold-over?” Reyes asked.

Bayan also claimed that the Palace’s impending appointment of the next Chief Justice, even before May 17, also raises concerns coming at a time when a potential constitutional crisis looms with the failure or postponement of the elections.

“The appointment of the next chief justice, at this crucial time, may also be part of the plans of the regime to legitimize whatever situation that may arise from the failed polls,” Reyes said.

“Whether or not the polls push though on May 10, the Comelec, Smartmatic and the Arroyo government must be held accountable for doing a terrible job at presiding over the country’s first automated polls. We said it before, there can be no credible polls until Arroyo is Malacañang, while the Comelec-Smartmatic tandem is laying the basis for failed automation,” Reyes said.

*Url: http://ph.news.yahoo.com/abs/20100506/tph-is-oplan-rafael-in-effect-8061bf7.html

RedStarKatleah supports KABATAAN PARTYLIST

RedStarKatleah supports KABATAAN PARTYLIST

This site strongly supports Kabataan Partylist as the representative of the youth and student sector in the country. True to its principle and to its promise of uplifting the people, not just the studentry and of the youth, the Kabataan Partylist, with its representative Raymond "Mong" Palatino encourages the youth to join in genuine nation building despite every controversy or anomalies being happened.

For sure most of us heard about this party. Being criticized along with the members of the legal left as wreckers of social order, Kabataan Partylist, like Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Gabriela women's party, and newly emerged parties like ACT, Katribu and Akap Bata somehow wanted a genuine reform program, contrary to those advocated by traditional politicians and of the like as part of a genuine framework for social change. KPL's act making "No permit no exam" policies be illegalized as well as its opposition for the increase in tuition and other fees supports the cause of the youth in having affordable, if not free education for all. And so is in uplifting knowledge and good recreation though advocacies including a bill having public libraries and good recreational facilities in every part of the country.

I hope people may understand how Kabataan Partylist, as well as other genuinely progressive partylists contributes to the country even in simple manner, contrary to those who spread black propaganda and other slanderous messages pointing against them.

So vote for Kabataan Partylist!
A vote for progression means a fulfillment for our youth!

Sympathy and Struggle

Sympathy and Struggle

Cooperation and struggle are two contradicting concept-doctrines that affect the society. Whereas, the doctrine of class struggle urges the lower classes to overthrow the ruling class and the existing social order for the purpose of establishing equality, while the doctrine of class cooperation urges them to accept inequality as part of the natural state of things and preserve the social order. But then, cooperation has different purposes. It can be preserving the social order or even changing it, and cooperation as a means of change lies accepting of struggle, of accepting the fact that the main force lies in the productive forces and be guided by a vanguard, of equality and of overthrowing the social order to attain a just society and happiness to all mankind. For in fact, Within struggle lies sympathy and cooperation of all the affected sectors of the society in pointing against the oppressor and in developing the socialist state, whose inclination is progressive and willing to change the society through all means necessary. Cooperation in a sense that involves arousing, organizing and mobilizing in accelerating the struggle against the reactionary forces and its cohorts, of integrating one's own with the productive forces and finally of proletarianizing the society to liberate from the centuries-old system which is rotten and degenerated.

And one of the examples would be China.

China is one of the examples of having cooperation as a part of revolutionary struggle to attain socialism-for they enter directly into socialism through a coalition of progressive-leaning classes (an example of cooperation) fighting the old ruling order that involves the reactionary-leaning ones and its cohorts. And this coalition is subsumed under the leadership and guidance of the working class and its communist party, and that coalition involves the patriotic and progressive leaning intelligentsia, who opted to integrated ones self to the people and contribute to the struggle in itself both in liberating the nation and to proletarianize themselves to contribute to the struggle towards socialism and eventually to communism.

And since cooperation is within struggle (and vice versa), it becomes a part of human progress since it involves mutuality, especially to those who are affected in the stage of human struggles man hath experienced, and it involves continuous energy, extreme consolidation and coordination of all progressive classes to grab state, economic and cultural power as unity becomes stronger and paving way to integration with the productive forces-as the progressive leaning ones, including those who are enlightened despite reactionary backgrounds to remold and become a part of the primary forces.

Well...

According to Sun-Yat-Sen:

"The main force of human progress lies in mutual help", but then that mutual help involves collective action and unity to the productive forces as means to spearhead the revolution both as a battle for national survival and for class liberation-since it is a two phase struggle and most of the oppressed masses are not fighting for mere "independence" but also for "land and bread" and a society wherein anything "is according to work" to attain "need", and somehow that kind of mutual help amongst the oppressed and progressive sectors within social struggles inculcates sympathy as they accept the fact that the masses, to be led by the proletariat are the makers of the society, having the power to create and as the masters of human fate. And that kind of mutual help, of integrating to the basic sectors ought to remold and rejuvenate social spirit in creating a liberating tomorrow what the masses wanted as they understand the reason of joining or even the intention of struggle.

Well...

From the basic unity of the workers and peasants to the progressive alliance with the patriotic and progressive leaning intelligentsia lies a straight path towards a just tomorrow, guided by the productive forces and of the vanguard, that kind of unity also serves as a nucleus of protracted revolutionary process as it restructures the society and advancing towards the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, for we all know that the proletariat serves as the leader of the struggle being set upon.

Lenin, in his work also stresses a need for cooperation. In his work, concerning a possible unity with the peasantry, said in his work "To the rural poor":

"...meanwhile, after the abolition of serfdom, a new class struggle arose, the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie...The urban workers started a new great struggle of all the poor against the rich...The peasants were defeated [in the past] but they will rise again and again...[and] the class conscious workers will do in their power to help..."

As what he have said, Lenin wanted a stronger unity with the peasantry, of uniting Marxism with Russian populism against the reaction, although at first he opposed that kind of idea, Lenin finally understood since he felt a need for a "unity" of all the poor and exploited sectors like those of the peasants and even the petit bourgeoisie with progressive inclinations, somehow, the Hammer and the Sickle is the proof that the unity between the exploited, poor workers and peasants are for.

And perhaps,

The potentiality and the possibility of the unity of all progressive leaning peoples with the exploited may carry through within the revolution, for they may rather wanted to give all and contribute to the cause wherein it would benefit all sectors according to their productive work to sustain their need. Somehow their understanding may lead to a change that affects their past lives as they enter a different setting as they studied every fact, every situation that no band aid solution can cover it and end up fail as they do so, and a need for a revolution would be its solution as it carries a long term series of program-action that may benefit from it.

And for sure the fascists and "left" opportunists may oppose this kind of idea, but they didn't notice that struggle has phases that involves both cooperation, integration and eventually struggle to accelerate the transition to a degree. Even Gregor Strasser (of the black front) affirms that National Socialism had a phase wherein struggle involved, but Strasser, like any other National Socialist leaders stress much of their Anti-semitic appeal rather than the general anti-capitalist appeal in repelling capitalism and the forces of reaction.

But then, Strasser, like Mao, somehow tried much to make it into a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form, to be initiated alongside nationalism. But then, Since the struggle towards communism is on its way, the idea of the fraternal unity and partnership of all progressive classes and eventual integration to the working people (the proletariat) will always be a part of it-especially in the undeveloped and developing countries and nations that end as pawns of the imperialists. And this kind of unity also involves unity of oppressed nations pointing against domestic oppressors and even the ones who ought to dictate domestic policies since struggle will always be both national and class whose victory of the oppressed would lead to eventual fraternal unity and brotherhood of nations and a system wherein "in each according to work done, in each according to need."

PRELUDE TO REVOLUTION: THE FIRST QUARTER STORM OF 1970 by ERNESTO M. HILARIO

PRELUDE TO REVOLUTION:

THE FIRST QUARTER STORM OF 1970 by ERNESTO M. HILARIO

The Philippines was not spared from the political ferment generated by student protest movements that shook the world from the mid to the late 60s. Taking the cue from their counterparts in the United States, Europe and Asia, Filipino students took to the streets in increasing numbers starting in the mid-60s to demand academic freedom and an end to the Vietnam War. The protest actions, sparked by a nationalist reawakening in the 1950s, peaked in 1970, when students along with other sectors launched a series of demonstrations, now collectively known as the “First Quarter Storm”, whose political repercussions are felt even today, four decades later.

The Gathering Storm

I was a freshman student of Political Science at the University of the Philippines as the decade of the 70s started. The university campus was already in ferment then, with teach-ins and discussion groups, and many students joining protest rallies and demonstrations. I was not a member of any of the radical student groups in 1970, but I found myself, like many others in my gen¬eration, drifting more and more to¬wards radicalism, and inexorably drawn right into the eye of a gathering storm.

The portent of things to come was January 26, 1970. Out of curiosity, I joined a march that started from the Welcome Rotunda in Quezon City to the old Congress building in Intramuros, Manila—a distance of about five kilometers—where then President Ferdinand Marcos was to deliver his State-of-the-Nation address. We gathered in front of the parliament building along with thousands of moderate and radical activists listening to speakers denounce the existing state of affairs in the country. Then, as Marcos was leaving the Congress premises on board a shiny black limousine, I saw a wooden coffin symbolizing the death of democracy being thrown his way. That’s when all hell broke loose, the riot squad swinging their rattan truncheons at hapless demon¬strators and bystanders alike. We scampered in all directions, running as fast as our feet could carry us. But a number of rallyists were not so lucky: a group of students aboard on board a UP Ikot jeepney were beat¬en black-and-blue. The next day, I learned that my brother Antonio, also called “Tonyhil” by friends and comrades, was confined at the University of the Philippines Infirmary, where he had been brought the night before for injuries suffered during the po¬lice mopping-up operations. Like the others who were caught inside the jeepney, he was severely beaten by truncheon-wielding policemen. When we visited him at the infirmary, his head was covered in bandage, and he complained of aches and pains all over his body. But he seemed to be in high spirits despite his injuries, and true enough, he was up and about after a few days and looking forward to the next demonstration.

Which came four days later, on January 30. We retraced our earlier route, starting off again from Quezon City and making our way to the Congress building, where speakers lambasted the Marcos regime for subservience to the United States and doing nothing to help the poor.

Shortly before sundown, I decided to go home and call it a day. But the estimated 30,000 or so demonstrators headed towards Malacañang Palace—a few kilometers away—punctuating the creeping nightfall with rhythmic chants of "Makibaka, Huwag matakot! (Fight, be not afraid!) Upon reaching the palace grounds about an hour later, a stone flew above the heads of the crowd and found its mark on a light bulb, sending shards of glass crashing down the pavement. Not long after, the police came and chased the demonstrators away, sending them fleeing towards the warren of streets in nearby University Belt. Thus began a seesaw battle between the police and soldiers on the one hand and radical youth and students on the other that raged throughout the night.

The revolution had begun, but the Philippine version of the storming of the Bastille was no dinner party. It exacted a heavy toll on life and limb. By crack of dawn, the insurrection had been crushed, the city pervaded with the unmistakable miasma of agony and death. Four youths lay dead, while scores of others writhed in pain in various hospitals as a result of injuries sustained in pitched battles that erupted throughout the night in the labyrinth of streets and alleys near the presidential palace.

For the radical activists who laid siege on Malacañang Palace on the night of January 30, 1970 and kept the whole nation teetering on the edge of turmoil throughout the first three months of the decade of the 70s, there was no turning back. As Philippine society stood on its head, they reasoned, it needed to be turned upside down. Armed with nothing more than angry slogans and sticks and stones, those who manned the barricades during the First Quarter Storm would undergo a baptism of fire that would change their lives forever.

The demonstrations on January 26 and 30 were but the opening salvoes of bigger protest actions or¬ganized by radical groups. For the next two months, the nation seethed with unrest as militant youth and students, joined by intellectuals, professionals and contingents of workers' and peasants' organizations, took to the streets in increasing numbers to clamor for radical changes in society. In February, thousands of people converged at Plaza Miranda in downtown Manila in three huge public meetings to ventilate their opposition to the Marcos gov¬ernment and what they perceived to be American imperial outreach. In March, leftist groups organized two big marches that snaked their way through the streets of Sampaloc, Quiapo, Sta. Cruz and Binondo districts in Manila and culminated in violent confrontation between rallyists and police in front of the US Embassy premises.

These protest actions rocked Philippine society to its foundations, sending chills of apprehension down the spines of those in positions of wealth and power, who saw in the rallies not the manifestations of a chronic social crisis, but the ominous signs of an impending communist takeover.


The First Quarter Storm of 1970: Its Significance

In retrospect, the First Quarter Storm was bound to happen. Nearly a quarter of a century after the grant of formal independence in 1946, the Philippines remained a backward agricultural nation with per capita income among the lowest in the world. Feudal structures in the coun¬tryside kept the majority of Filipinos in extreme poverty. The inequitable distribution of wealth and the gap between the rich and the poor in Philippine society was often de¬scribed by radical activists in terms of a pyramid where a mere five per¬cent representing the ruling elite controlled the nation's wealth and kept the broad base consisting of 90 percent of the total population—workers and farmers and other low-income folk—in a state of perpetual dependency.

As Filipinos reeled under the weight of poverty, graft and corrup¬tion became endemic in the government bureaucracy. The political system itself afforded little hope for change since neither the two political parties then offered the people a real choice in terms of alternative programs. Political warlordism was on the rise. Despite five changes in government administration in the post-independence era, the nation remained mired in the politics of patronage and personalities. When the Sixties ended, there¬fore, the nation was in the grip of economic crisis, and popular clamor for change was beginning to reach fever-pitch.

The First Quarter Storm of 1970 was the logical outcome of two decades of nationalist re-awakening in the post-World War II era. This nationalist re-awakening gave impetus to the growth of a popular movement aimed at ex¬posing American dominance of Philippine economic and political life. Claro M. Recto and other nationalists questioned parity rights given to the Americans in exchange for post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction. Recto also criticized the presence of huge American military bases in the country as an affront to Philippine sovereignty. For his part, Renato Constantino, a prominent historian, focused his writings on how the Americans had imposed their own values on the Philippine educational system, leading to what he said was the “miseducation” of the Filipino. Constantino also ventured a radical reinterpretation of Philippine history that put a high premium on the struggles waged by popular move¬ments against colonialism.

The nationalist awakening of the 1950s led to the establishment in the early 1960s of the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN). This was followed by the creation in 1964 of the militant Kabataang Makabayan (KM), which stood in the forefront of mass protests against the Vietnam War and American military presence in the Philippines starting in the mid-60s. Other youth-student groups, notably the Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK), came to the fore and joined the KM in exposing the ills of Philippine society through protest rallies and demonstrations as well as teach-ins and discussion groups in university campuses and urban communities.

All this, situated within the context of the worldwide upsurge in the student movement, the rise of Black con¬sciousness and the emergence of a strong antiwar movement in the United States, made the First Quarter Storm inevitable. By 1970, as the radical groups saw it, the Philippines was ripe for a revolu¬tion. If the First Quarter Storm held any significance, it was to bring to the light of day the problems of poverty and inequity bequeathed by history. At the same time, it served to popularize the need for a radical solution to the Philippine crisis.

Student activism in the late 1960s and early 1970s thrived on various issues. Among them was academic freedom. But the student movement soon began to look outside the walls of academe and increasingly took positions against oil price hikes, foreign monopoly control of the oil industry, the presence of US military bases on Philippine soil, the US military involvement in Vietnam, graft and corruption, foreign domination of the economy, and state fascism as exemplified by police brutality and suppression of popular protest actions.

More than anything else, the First Quarter Storm was an assertion of Filipino identity. The radicals who shouted "Down with American imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism!" were serving notice to the generation before them that they were breaking free from the past and charting a new future for themselves and succeeding generations.

After the tumultuous months that made up the First Quarter Storm, the history of this nation was dramatically altered. The Marcos regime, its capability to effectively govern thrown under a shadow of doubt, began to increasingly isolate itself from the very people it swore to serve, the most telling manifestation of which was that the streets leading to Malacañang Palace were perma¬nently barred from being used as venues for protest until 1986. Refusing to heed the handwriting on the wall, the Marcos government chose to bend the rules to suit its own purposes, suspending the writ of habeas corpus on August 21, 1971 and a year later, on September 21, 1972, usurping all power by imposing martial law.

For many of those who took part in these rallies and demonstrations, the First Quarter Storm was a valu¬able training ground for the revolutionary enterprise, a period in their lives like no other. For it was the time that they first opened their eyes to what was happening in their midst, and made them realize that change in the Philippine society lay not in the peaceful pursuit of piecemeal reforms, but in the radical overhaul of power relations, that is, giv¬ing the poor and powerless majority the means to take their future in their own hands. And it was the time when the activist culture took root, a counter-culture that developed in opposition to the escapism of the hippie movement. It emphasized Mao's dictum of serving the people. This meant simple living and hard struggle, and working for change in society despite tremendous odds.

The First Quarter Storm of 1970 was a dress rehearsal and a sneak preview of the People Power Revolution of 1986 that the world applauded because it represented a clear victory over tyranny.
Observers of the Philippine political scene have pointed to the assassination of opposition stalwart Benigno Aquino in August 1983 as the nodal point that marked the beginning of the end of the Marcos regime. I am not inclined to dispute this assertion. But I believe the link between the First Quarter Storm and the People Power Revolution of 1986 has not been given the importance it deserves. The historical continuity between the two events must be established because they represent important landmarks in the Filipino people's long struggle for democracy.

For all intents and purposes, the mainstream Left was instrumental in laying the ground, preparing public opinion for the People Power Revolution of 1986 that ousted Marcos. And yet, in a twist of fate, when the Marcos dictatorship was finally overthrown, the Left was nowhere to be found. In a way, the Left is now in search of another revolutionary surge that will relive its days of glory and attest to the correctness of the radical option.

The First Quarter Storm of 1970: Its Impact on the Present

The First Quarter Storm of 1970, as has been pointed out, served as dress rehearsal for the 1986 People Power Revolution. But its impact extends even to the present. While many student radicals eventually joined the New People’s Army to take part in armed struggle against the Philippine government—the country now hosts the longest-running Maoist insurgency in Asia—many others have continued their activism through others means.

The Philippines claims the distinction of having the liveliest civil society movement in the world with the proliferation since the 1980s of various NGOs engaged in various issues: development, human rights advocacy, and environmental concerns. Many former activists are now working in NGOs and people’s organizations (POs) where they take part in social development, human rights advocacy, and environmental protection. For them, this is merely a continuation of the radical politics they espoused in their youth.

A few former FQS activists have joined government where they feel they can make a difference in the lives of Filipinos. Several veteran activists have entered mainstream politics, either as party-list representatives or as local government officials. The militant party-list groups offer a refreshing departure from the traditional politics characterized by the dominance of political dynasties that manage to hang on to power through the use of guns, goons and gold in elections often marred by cheating and violence.

The influence of the radical left in Philippine politics is also evident in the cooptation by the establishment of their language. When traditional politicians in the Philippines today speak of ‘empowerment’, what they simply mean is that they want to provide livelihood to their constituents or put up irrigation ditches in rural farms. But for radicals, empowerment is a complex process of organizing and mobilizing people for definite political ends, not for political expediency.

Towards the Future

Mendiola Bridge sits at the approach to Malacañang Palace, the seat of government where the Philippine president resides and holds office. The bridge is an unprepossessing structure, no more than several hundred yards in length. But what was it about this bridge that irresistibly drew the citizens of the nation, like moths to a flame, to repeatedly cross its short span, fearing neither hail of bullets nor history's harsh judg¬ment?

Forty years ago, Mendiola Bridge stood guard at the gates of political power, a mute witness to the lamen¬tations that were sent to the heavens by those crying for deliverance from their wretched lot. Today, many years later, it occupies a central place in the consciousness of many Filipinos, serving as a grim reminder of their long struggle against political repression, and as a fitting symbol of their continuing search for a better future.


•(The author writes a weekly column for the Business Mirror OP-ED page. This article was originally published in German in the September 2008 issue of the quarterly journal Südostasien)

HOUNDED BY MILITARY FOR YEARS, EX-BAYAN LEADER TAKES REFUGE IN NPA

HOUNDED BY MILITARY FOR YEARS, EX-BAYAN LEADER TAKES REFUGE IN NPA
By ALVIN LUQUE

In the past three years, several speculations about my absence from the progressive movement in urban centers in Mindanao have come out. The AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines), through its propaganda spin doctors, has consistently vilified me through black propaganda, saying even, at one time, that I was already dead.

These speculations must end, and it must be pointed out that the US-Arroyo regime will stop at nothing until and unless it has snuffed-out the life of every dissenter in the nation. Therefore, I must tell the truth: there is no way out of the brutality and impunity under this government except to fight against it.

Alvin Luque reads a script of the play staged during the 41st celebration of the Communist Party of the Philippines in Caraga region. The play depicted problems of the Philippine society and the history of the Communist movement. (Photo by Jose Hernani / davaotoday.com)

As I have said in 2007, I would not surrender myself to the whims and desires of the reactionary government, which resorts to silencing activists through political assassinations. I would have wanted, finally, to have my day in court, but I feared that, once arrested, I was vulnerable to all sorts of attack, especially from the AFP which considered me an ‘enemy of the state.’ Therefore, I have chosen not to submit myself to the processes of the law under the present reactionary government in the interest primarily of self-preservation, and to be effective still in contributing to the people’s struggle for national liberation and democracy.

Under the US-Arroyo regime, more than a thousand of its critics and dissenters have been victimized by extra-judicial killings, including journalists, media workers, lawyers and the religious. Justice indeed has a bleak prospect under the current regime. I cannot sit idly by, stand watch, and simply bear one gruesome murder after another, and still pretend the situation is fine. Just action must be taken. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to do everything in my power not just to live but also to go on living fighting for the people whom this regime incessantly exploit and oppress.

Yes, I have chosen to seek refuge under the revolutionary movement, particularly with the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People’s Army and the National Democratic Front. This is the most logical choice on my part because these are the very organizations that can guarantee not only my protection from political killings but also, above all, freedom of the people from the oppressive grip of a reactionary fascist state. I am still breathing and fighting precisely because of this choice.

I have taken the opportunity to reveal before the media with regard my present state and involvement to say to the public that we do not have to be hapless and helpless under this exploitative social system. There is, in fact, hope. And our hope, as a people, lie with the national democratic revolution. To side with the revolution is to side with freedom, justice, and life. Let no lie peddled by the Arroyo government or the AFP distort this.

This has been my personal choice. This does not in any way prove that the organizations I was involved with in the legal arena and the revolutionary forces that I have sought refuge in are one and the same.
I also plead innocent to the criminal charges leveled against me before a court in Davao City. I did not commit any of those acts. I would have wanted to face trial and articulate my side of the case, but that, like I said, was impossible given the state of impunity under this regime.

I have no regrets with the choice I have made because I still have my life (thanks to the NPA as my sanctuary) and I will use this life to make my mark, together with other revolutionaries, in liberating the people from a rotten society. And should I die in the course of this fight, it is one death I know that is well worth bearing.


The author, the former secretary-general of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, finally got to talk about his choice to become a guerrilla to reporters covering the 41st celebration of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) on Dec. 26.

article from websites Bulatlat.com and Davaodaily.com, and made last January 17, 2010