Revolution Redefined

A reader wants me to define revolution. This is in reaction to what I wrote previously, my dig on Cocoy's piece in Filipinovoices.com.

It is easy for someone versed in Marxism-Leninism to define revolution. Yet, in our times, it is not expedient to do so. Revolution, as defined by Marxists and neo-Marxists, do not encapsulate present conditions. Why?

Because revolution now can take various forms other than the traditional purview that it involves violence.

For example, a substantial technological change could be defined as a revolution. Or, a simple conversion of faith could be linked to a "moral revolution"

What I am saying is this term has been used and re-used in almost all writings since Karl Marx wrote his monumental dig on capitalist society in Das Kapital. De constructionists have prostituted the term for their own philosophical advantages. Others, have linked this definition of revolution in all fields of interests.

IN our time, revolution should be defined as a complete procedural change. It could be on two levels: one, internal through socio-cultural change and two, through a politico-economic change.

Why do I emphasize on the socio-cultural level?

Because that answers most of the critiques about the EDSA revolutions of 1986 and 2001. I agree that these two events are not pure revolutions. They are just coups d'etat, mirages of revolutions. Why?

1986 led to the re-establishment of the pre-Martial law era where aristocrats rule over government. 2001, meanwhile, succeeded in replacing the Erap elite faction with that of Arroyo's.

Both incidents did not lead to a substantial change in the politico-economic system. The system remained capitalist. The societal structure supported the same powers that have supported the ousted regime. State resources only changed hands--from a purely controlled and concentrated one to a dispersed patronage system. Those who militated against Marcos were given the spoils. While those on the other fence either went on exile or morphed or were "rehabilitated" in the acceptable social mold.

The reason is simple--the base of the 1986 "revolution" was not entirely ideological. They went to EDSA just to oust what they perceive as a corrupt and immoral regime. Period. The source of dissent or disgusts was personal. It was never ideological.

Revolutionary forces failed to effectively convert the EDSA adherents into ideological cadres. Those who governed under Aquino were social democrats. They were unable to translate principles into meaningful actions that would have enhanced or even changed the very structures established during the dictatorship.

2001 could have been the great opportunity to re-write history. It could have been used as a vehicle to established an ideology that would guide the change.

Clearly, the same problems reared its ugly head after the ouster of Estrada. Since the motivation for the ouster of Erap was based again on personal attacks, the same ugly cycle occurred.

Worst, the change was just from a perceived lackluster governance style into a "more efficient" style of rule. That's why the societal problems which existed even prior to the two EDSA's again emerged because, again, there was no effort to really change the very system which some EDSA veterans militated against.

Revolutions are internal affairs. Revolutions involve both the mind and the Spirit. Those who want change should start the change in themselves first, before any overt action should be undertaken.

Those who shout change should start demystifying the armchair concepts they have on revolutions. They should undergo the process of proletarianization before they go to the streets. This process involves understanding the values of the proletarian class.

I remember the story told by Jun Lozada before the Senate during the ZTE hearings. One time, he was in the mountains, talking to a farmer. He noticed that guavas just lay on the ground. He asked the farmer why he's just letting these precious fruits to rot on the ground. The answer was simple--the guavas are to feed the birds. He was struck dumb.

Lozada underwent the first stage of proletarianization, which is understanding how proletarian classes think. The second should be living with them and probably the third would be wanting how this class thinks about change.

We ask--by what means do we change society? It depends on what the People want.

Based on my studies now, the People want a swift, decisive and more substantial action against the prevailing system.

They want change immediately. Period. They want those who have the capability of bringing down this government to go all-out and fight on their behalf. They will support a military action, yes. The times are ripe for the picking.

We say the New Philippine Revolution, what do we mean?

We mean the cycle of creating Bagong Tao or the New Man. It starts with the mind, then with the Spirit. We recognize that revolutions should involve the change of the mind then a change in the Spirit of Man. The change should be based on new paradigms of thought, the destruction of old thinking and the floundering of the New Concepts. What these concepts are? Send me an email and I'll explain this concept further.