On Revolutionary Government and Making Governments revolutionary

There are three (3) things which some people use in invalidating the idea of creating a revolutionary government under Mr. Duterte.

The first is constitutionality. There is no provision in the Constitution that legally allows Mr. Duterte to declare a revolutionary government. Revolutionary governments, they say, proceed from a revolution. A revolution is a qualitative break from traditional government. How can Mr. Duterte declare a revolution when he heads the traditional government?

The second is impossibility. Mr. Duterte is just a face, an image, of an administration that is now being managed by minions of a former dispensation, wholly chastised for its wanton disregard of law, decency, morality and corruption. Mr. Duterte appears to be in charge when in truth and in fact, former members of the Arroyo administration are in control of government. We are living in a post-Arroyo era where its poster boy, Mr. Duterte loves the spotlight but hates the work. This is problematic because the Presidency is judged for its performance, and its performance depends on how the Head manages the myriad of administrative clutter and preponderance of bureaucratic files. An insider says that the President hardly reads documents presented before him. He should be circumspect enough to identify the fraud from the truth. Mr. Duterte should be more careful on signing papers since several PPP projects are now in full swing.

Lastly, even if Mr. Duterte do break out from government and declare a revolutionary government, Mr. Duterte does not deserve to lead it because he lacks a deeper ideological understanding of the ramifications of leading such a government. Plus, he surrounds himself with people who are clueless of what creature a revolutionary government is.

Maybe what Mr. Duterte meant when he floated this idea is to make the present government revolutionary or transformative. If this is what he meant, then, expect no substantial change in policy and the way this government is being run. Why?

A revolutionary government is a qualitative break, a radical departure from the traditional processes of governance. In this governmental model, the transformative power lies not with the Executive (or at the very least, transformation is limited) but is based on the direction the Legislative intends to take.

We operate based on law. Our system exists because of processes created by law. Existing laws promote a parasitic environment where the rich maintains their wealth through manipulation of the resources of the state. The very laws which enable us to survive for a century and a half are the very laws that condemn us to an uncertain future.

This state has been engineered to allow those with enormous capital to grow their capital more while those without capital are doomed to paupers. It is inequality in the access of capital that is the core problem of this country and this cannot be solved through propaganda. This existing system must be broken and smashed into pieces to enable us to create a new one.

We must smash our set of laws and create new ones based on Filipino values, processes and a new form or mode of production, dissimilar with what we have today.

We must weaponize the State against oligarchical rule. We must use the State as the hammer to smash elitist rule in this country. It is the only way for us to create a more equitable society.

Some say, we must create from the ashes of the old Republic. Kant describes as a republic as a state with democracy and law. However, our present Republic does not exercise democracy and though there are laws, these laws do not serve even fundamental interests of the majority of the People.

For us to attain a new one, we must dive into the depths of anarchy and allow the system to rot and break into several pieces. During an era of leaderless-ness, we then would be able to determine the true kind of leadership we need in re-establishing a state that promotes the genuine interests of 101 million Filipinos.

From a parasitic state to a nation-state--that should be our direction. Mr. Duterte does not have the qualities necessary to lead us to this ideal because he is just a stooge, a warlord of a group of Oligarchs warring over state resources with other Oligarchs. Instead of leading us to a strong nation-state, Mr. Duterte is even causing disruptions and disunity among us. He is just living in his fantasy world where he thinks of himself as a military leader commanding armies and state security agents in a Quixotic journey to nowhere.

We are being misled to belief that change is coming when in truth and in fact, we are just in a state of free fall, while elites fight each other for more than a trillion pesos up in grabs.

Prof. Walden Bello says that Mr. Duterte is leading us to perdition with his idea of a dictatorship. I dare say, Mr. Duterte does not need to declare such because we are now living under one.

What will finally make Mr. Duterte realize that he is just being used by the elite as the ultra promoter of oligarchical democracy? When the economy just screeches to a halt and the horde of impoverished Filipinos suddenly appears right before the very gates of Malacanan.

That is expected.

Let the business of revolution be left to the hands of revolutionaries. And let pseudo revolutionaries suffer their sure fate of damnation.

The New Katipunan Revolution

Three years from now, and the Filipino electorate will have been a lot smarter then than now. Remnants of the old thinking in politics remain, expressed in several surveys by PulseAsia and SWS. Three years, and political thinking would have matured in an extent that would allow a "springing forth" of alternative ideas of governance.

There is a noticeable disillusionment in the way things are being managed in this country and with the availability of communication gadgets which promotes no-cost information at a click of a switch, more and more people are expected to have already formed their own interpretation of Philippine reality. People in the streets are more politically conscious now than before, and unknown to many, a lot smarter than self-proclaimed "political analysts".

I deem it wise to consult with the masses before I write my piece. My training in research equips me with the right tools to determine what bull-shit info is, and what is not.

I sense a palpable beat, a consistent pulse, among the masses. They yearn for true change. There is a necessity to communicate to them the promise of legitimate change thru historical conventions which they already know and has been imbedded in the mass psyche or what others call the people's consciousness.

I still cling to the belief that the ultimate desire of every Filipino is really just to improve their lives. Without the proper mechanism in this system whereby it allows the spilling of economic gains to those who are in want, there would never be real change. When people in government desire only their individual comfort and serve not the masses which they have sworn to serve, there will never be a time when people will feel a sense of improvement in their lives.

Economic figures being released by government show a bullish economy. The thing is, if the economy is really improving and this is the time to avail of public resources to improve one's life, then, why are people not buying high-ticket items such as houses and lots? Why are people not risking enough? This is due to the fact that most people know what is really happening, and the situation right now remains a hand-to-mouth existence to most, instead of a "perfumed" kingdom as what Noynoy wants us to believe.

This administration started on the right path then veered away from it when traditional forces merged with the small reform-minded block behind those curtain walls. So-called reformist groups who positioned themselves or branded themselves as illustrious sons of a new revolution, have proven themselves unworthy of the task and instead, only bother to enrich themselves and those who continually support them.

Those who have fought Arroyo have been transformed into apologists of a system waiting to be destroyed. These people continually cling to the notion that all is not lost, and this system remains viable and is still "salvage-able". No.

This system is ripe for the picking, and change should be made immediately along the lines of what the illustrious Supremo envisioned when he staged the Katipunan revolution. At best, this society which the Katipunan wanted is akin to the welfare state, with a socialist economy. This kind of political arrangement should immediately be implemented in this country to avoid it going down the path of anarchy.

Three years and there will spring forth, a New Katipunan revolution, one that is pure in its intentions and one that will bring prosperity in a land peopled by honest men and women who only desire an equitable and just society.

Why The Left Remains Relevant

Susan Quimpo dismisses the present Left Movement as some organisation with a very distinct and static view of its glorious past. Quimpo writes in Rappler how the Left uses the same old propaganda lines which she, and probably most of her relatives from the Quimpo clan, probably believed in too several years ago. She uses a most oft-repeated tactic--an "ordinary observer" belonging to what she thinks as "masa", showing bewilderment and even, disgust. Those first paragraphs allowed her to spurt her bias against those who continue to militate in the streets.

For Quimpo, this is not the time to get angry, but probably, to get even. What she proposes is for those "true advocates" of change to just work with government for substantial change.

Unknown to Quimpo, those who advocate for the easy way out for change are getting more and more frustrated by the day. The longer one works with institutions of repression, the more one realizes the futility of  sacrificing most of your day thinking your honest actions contribute to the slow burn of change. No.

As "change agents" work with institutions of repression, the more they realize the importance of revolution as a mode of change. Yes, thru the years, the very meaning of this term "revolution" has been diluted by capitalists and their apologists as something you can do in small scales. You can call yourself a revolutionary if you work with the government or even in corporations for as long as you do actions that benefit the people.

Bull. Crap.

A revolutionary is somewhat an iconoclast who hungers for something better than what the system is today. A revolutionary is someone who works for the total overhaul of this decrepit capitalist system which oppresses the workers and most of the people.

This belief stems from the realization that the very system itself promotes inequality. Capitalism is not meant to create an equal opportunity society, no. Capitalism is there to perpetuate those who already are in power. There is no chance for the worker to seize the means of production in capitalism. The means of production remains with the capitalist, and the same goes with the rest of society.

Why is the Left still relevant in our present time? Socialism is still one alternative system against the present rotten capitalist system. Socialism is ever evolving, its primary core principle still remains highly relevant and it is an ideological framework that remains substantial.

Filipinos are realizing the effectiveness of socialism as an analytical tool, particularly in explaining existing socio-economic and political phenomena. Socialism explains why the present Philippine system is far from being saved from the clutches of elite rule--because most resources or the means of production remains at the hands of a very few who uses their power and wealth in continually exploiting the people.

The Left continues to be relevant because it continues to expound and expose the truth before the people. In time, the people will realize that what we Filipinos need is not cooptation nor working for government. No.

There will come a time when we will all realize the inevitability of revolution as a mode of change and will crave for it.

Akbayan and Anakbayan cancelling themselves out

It's like 1993 again, this time, these groups are not engaged in an ideological war---they are now discussing on who deserves the right to run in a parliamentary elections. Before, they used to debate on who holds the right strategy in effecting the downfall of the Philippine Republic. Now, they are debating why the other is not fit to be allowed to run in the 2013 elections.

Anakbayan and Akbayan are throwing mud at each other, like kids. Anakbayan accuses Akbayan of being a political stooge of the Aquino administration, while the latter raised once more the accusation of the former being the legal front of the CPP-NPA-NDF.

True red or pale red--you choose. 

Akbayan's Walden Bello boasts that their organisation is pursuing a progressive kind of politics, meaning, a yellowish form of Socialism while Anakbayan is simply Red. 

Bello's boast is simply an attempt to hide their true colors--these personalities have been coopted by the State already--like the dreaded Kabapi during the time of the Japanese invasion.

Anakbayan, meanwhile is a confused lot. They want a revolution, but is dying to enter the system and dominate politics. For what?

And I am not entirely surprised anymore why a Socialist-inspired revolution would ever succeed in this country---its leaders are no more than armchair dreamers, sons and daughters of wealthy landlords and bureaucrat capitalists.

Their own process of transformation---from purely ideological literatis (or textbook revolutionaries) to pure revolutionary (those who underwent proletarization process) has been incomplete.

Truly, these groups are both irrelevant. They have retired themselves from true revolutionary work. They don't want to change the system by uprooting it from the ground. 

The only true revolutionary group that I find worthy of my praise as a true-blue mass-based and pro-people political party is the Partido Lakas ng Masa.

Pinoy Nation grows out of the Internet: The User is still King

Technology has dissolved the barriers of nation-building. Every single day, we Filipinos are contributing to the rise of the Filipino Nation, whether we like it or not. We are slowly creating and defining this Nation in our own terms and in our own language. As we move slowly forward in the technological sphere courtesy of the Internet, we are consciously or unconsciously bringing forth, the birth of a truly distinct, Pinoy Nation.


This nation assumes a more definitive form, as I observed, in three occasions: one, when there is a disaster. Two, when there is a global recognition of a Pinoy talent and lastly, when there is threat to the patrimony of this nation.


For three disasters already, we all know how Pinoys unite and come out of their homes to help other Pinoys in extreme distress. One example was Typhoon Sendong. A blogger and social media practitioner, Mindanaoan, used her Twitter account to rally fellow Filipinos together to help victims of the vicious floods caused by Sendong. Previous to this, Typhoon Ondoy made it as one of the top trending topics in the Philippines, when millions online discussed their own experiences, shared their sadness and triumphs with other Filipinos and that urged others to come out of their comfort zones to volunteer for relief assistance. 


Three popular names come to mind in support of my second assertion. Manny Pacquiao, Charice and Jessica Sanchez became instant household names when they hugged the headlines and when millions of Pinoys, both here and abroad, talked about them. They became big because people rallied behind them, supported them, praised them and exchanged thoughts for them. Pinoys were there for them when they made their big splash. Pinoys talked animately about them during their times of trial and struggles, and did not abandon them even in their times of extreme distress. 


Lastly, you can feel, see and hear how passionately Pinoys love their country. When news spread about China's illegal intrusions unto Philippine territory, millions of Filipinos decried the act online. Fact is, I believe, if war do break out in the Western Philippine sea, millions of Filipinos will probably flood the internet with billions of devastating tweets against their fellow and long-time friends, the Chinese. 


Back in the old days, as an Historiographer and a theory-maker, I am deathly worried about the distinct possibility of uniting this nation into one community.


Take a look at History and read various sociological studies and you'll conclude that the term "Filipino Nation" is more of a construct rather than fact. We are a nation divided not just by geographical barriers, but by ethno-linguistic and cultural obstructions.


Patriots of the past thought that an ideology could bring us together. China, in 1949, did just that by uniting under the banner of Socialism. During the sixties, the seventies and even the early eighties, people of similar persuasion thought that socialism is the one construct that could rally people together and change things.


Now, technology is not dictating us where to go--we, as a People, are dictating technology's path. When the first cellphones came, analysts were worried that technology would dictate the very lives of people. 


The reality is, people are dictating the uses of technology and defining what kind of technology fits them, and not the other way around. Applications, for example, are being created out of the need or necessity of people, and not because of a whim or caprice of an individual or a group of individual.


There was also the concern a few years back, of a developing clique of technology pariahs who dreams of maybe someday, conquering the world. They hope to dictate to people what to think using technology as a tool.


Now, the reality is, again proving these fears wrong. Technology,rightly or wrongly, has become a slave of man. The Consumer is still the freeman, and technology a tool of human kind. The User is still King.


Back to the creation of the Pinoy Nation.


Using a technology as our communication platform, we Filipinos are dictating the path of our nation. Government, in the next few years, will shape its policies based on the people's sovereign will expressed in the Internet. Even the economy will be shaped by the online community speaking as one. Before, the phrase "people's will" was just a construct expressed in various Constitutions around the world. Now, the people's will is becoming a fact. That beneath the cacophony of a million voices, lies the true expression of the people. 


The people's will, if you ask me a decade ago, is a mere Idea. The people's will in the Constitution of a State is the will of the minority who claims and possesses power.


With the internet, people are slowly getting back the power they once surrendered to the elites of their societies. What is so miraculous about all these things is the fact that this silent revolution, if you will, is changing the landscape without force of arms or without spilling blood. We, the people, are engaged in an intellectual revolution without us knowing that we are its warriors and ideologues.


As I once coined the phrase "intellectual entrepreneur" several years back, I am slowly realising that that phrase is not merely a construct but becoming a fact. 


A day or two from now, we will be celebrating the "Social Media day". In my radio program, Ratsada sa Inquirer, I asked Juan Manila who invented this "day" and why that "day"--June 30. She wasn't able to explain it. It just happened that some people declared June 30 as, Social Media day.


This is the best description of how beautiful social media has become--that people are engaging themselves animately online and creating constructs and concepts out of a mere whim.

YOU-RAM-SFP and the Unsung Heroes of EDSA 1986

Let the True People's Revolt smash the elites!

In 1989, at the height of a struggle against the corporatist administration of former president Corazon Aquino, few people trooped to Malacanang to express their support behind the beleaguered leader.  The soldiers composing the Young Officers' Union (YOU), the Revolutionaryong Alyansang Makabayan (RAM) and the Soldiers of the Filipino People (SFP) were out to get the regime who reportedly renege on its promises of change shortly after 1986. 


Street battles exploded in the streets near Malacanang, reminiscent of American troops battling it out with the Japanese Kempetai during World War two. Explosions rocked Malacanang as airplanes swooped down and bombed several places to smithereens. 1989 was an unforgettable and emotional juncture in Philippine history, as friends battled it out with friends, classmates with classmates, Mason with Mason. 

The societal fragmentation caused by the takeover of the Aquino-Cojuangco clan in the seat of power caused a very serious disorder in the system. Changes were not effected overnight simply because certain elements of the previous dispensation successfully embedded themselves near the center of power. The lack of a clear ideological framework doomed the 1986 event. There was no effort at running after counter-revolutionaries. There was no effort at smashing the traditional centers of power created after several years under martial rule. People who benefitted from the Marcos regime, and those who composed the propertied classes who tolerated the excesses of dictatorship were left unopposed and unpunished. They were left to use their ill-gotten wealth to undermine the policies and desires of the People for change, as reflected in the 1987 Constitution. 


These patriotic soldiers, led by YOU founder Diosdado Valeroso and now Senator Greg Honasan and General Danny Lim and others were slowly being marginalized. Their roles in the historic EDSA 1986 are being blurred and several civilian ideologues tried very hard to describe the 1986 phenomenon as something of a civilian action against an unjust regime. What it really was, was a culmination of several years of struggle led by the leaders of the masses who opposed tyrannical rule. 


1986 was supposed to be a year of change, a period where Filipinos of all shapes and sizes, of all ideological beliefs, of all skills and experience, were supposed to gather themselves and express the true will of the People. The subversion of this "will" was fairly evident, when malevolent societal forces tried to force their will unto a hastily discussed Charter. Like what happened in 1946, shortly after the war, the leaders of this country abandoned their avowed promises to the people, and when it was time to unite and forge a unified platform of government and a clear policy direction for the next succeeding years, they expressed their class preferences instead of minding the true will of the suffering masses.


Class domination became a recurring and permanent fixture in Philippine political history that it now remains as a veritable scourge in this country's development. What had happened during these past twenty six years were events showing inter-elite struggles for power. The opposing Elites use emotional manipulation to urge the middle classes and a fraction of the suffering masses to militate against the ruling elites, and when their time came to rule, these opposing elites immediately reverted to their original natures, a nature despicable and highly toxic to the interests of the Filipino masses.


What has been the culmination of the dreams of the patriotic soldiers who forgot their futures and threw their own lives away just for the sake of the suffering masses became some sort of a copyrighted script turned weapon by an elite whose interest is solely anchored on personal corporatist desires rather than the true desire to help a country recover from numerous catastrophes and disasters.


Where are those soldiers who sacrificed their lives and futures just to forge a true and genuine people's government? 


It is again, time for these patriotic elements to save democracy from utter destruction, caused by this misguided view of several elites that EDSA1986 is a hammer of the elite against their fellow elites.


The phenomenon that was EDSA has been transformed into a weapon of a segment of the elite either to perpetuate themselves to power or cause the downfall of an existing power. 


EDSA 1986 was never intended for the pleasures and whims of the elite. True EDSA is anti-elite, anti-cono, anti-Ilustrado.


Let the enlightened Indio unite as a class, and retake EDSA 1986 from the elites of this country and use this as a hammer to smash them to smithereens. 

Gil Scott-Heron

Gil Scott-Heron, the one who changed the face of music and brought it from the ground up, is dead. He's 62.


My poem for Gil


" The Revolution was, indeed, televised."

and.he.faces.the music.like a babe tryin to reach for that handof his motheror like an old manreachin for another old man's cane.

after a life of strugglehis life always un-televisednow his revolution hasturned in coldwith the massesstill livin like ghosts.

yep, his revolution will now be televisedhis death a cause of concernwas it drugs that did him inor melancholy has set doubts in?

by and by, the revolution was, indeed, televisedand became part of the system.the revolution has not changed anything.it just been televised.

Joma Sison longs for home

Jose Maria Sison longs for home, and who will not? Every Filipino born in these beautiful lands, would always think of home. Like what they always say, home is where the heart is. Mountains and mangoes, he says, are all he misses, plus of course, the company of friends.


I think it is best for Joma to really come home and see the countrysides. The countrysides have improved a lot in terms of "look" and "feel", so much different from those he saw during the 70's. Real incomes, however, according to the NSCB, are still far from ideal. Fact is, only three of the fourteen regions, have positive average family incomes. 


Yet, progress is slowly creeping in, I admit. I always go out of Metro Manila every single week, to see for myself how things are doing in provinces near the metro. People are still poor, yes, but the means which they derive their incomes have changed, drastically. Only a few people derive their incomes from the fruits of the land, and most are now workers. 


Consider this stats from the NSO and the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). There are about 1.4 million families right now earning under 40,000 a month incomes, while those earning 249,999 monthly incomes have reached 3.264 million, signifying a horizontal growth in the past few years. Entrepreneurship? Not really. 43% gets their monthly income from wages and salaries.

Sources of Income
Income Category	Wage	Entrepreneurial activities	other sources of income
Under 40,000	25.87%	22%	52.17%
40-59,999	37.73%	28.50%	33.73%
60-99,000	52.40%	27.33%	20%
100-249,000	55.02	18%	19.77%
Total Average	42.76%	23.96%	31.42%

Philippines	All Income	Under 40k	40-59,999	60-99,000	100-249000	249999up
	17,403,000	1,392,000	2,355,000	4,122,000	6,271,000	3,264,000

Now the "other sources of income" category here might be overseas remittances. The under 40k category gets most of their income from these other sources. Meaning, their wages and salaries are not really enough to support their lives.  They are the largest beneficiaries of overseas remittances which account for about US$12-14 billion every year.


Obviously, there are now more workers, possibly industrial, now than in the 70's when Jose Maria Sison wrote the Philippine Society and Revolution (PSR), a classic. From his analysis of Philippine society, the Left movement derived its conclusion on how best to correct the centuries-old injustices in the country.


When Joma analyzed that society is still "semi-colonial and semi-feudal", he then postulated that the correct approach to the problem was the protracted people's war.


For him, the protracted people's war follows the Maoist example of establishing mass bases in the countrysides and slowly building the force leading to the conquest so to speak of the cities, and thereafter, the seat of power. 


He did'nt say however, how protracted or how long this people's war should be, but by the looks of it, this war could go on for centuries. The Party has just celebrated its 40 years plus existence, and by the way things are going, the war could last up to another 40 and by that time, Joma's age would probably be 121.


The problem with a protracted people's war is sustenance. Sustaining an army, in logistical terms, is extremely hard. You need to feed them and sustain their morale and train them always in fighting form.


Now, when fighters turn into political officers (as what some rationalize it), the army loses its edge. Fighters are fighters and you can't transform them into farmers or workers overnight. When you train someone to fight and kill for a cause, it's quite hard for them to revert to their old statuses as farmers, workers or laborers. Being a political officer is different from a guerilla fighter, it involves two differing thought processes. 


When large areas of your bases are domiciled, you lose a sizeable portion of your combatants. Why? Again, when you train ordinary people and make them soldiers and warriors, they will always expect a fight or at least occasions where they'll be able to show their mettle. When you slow down your engagements, you then risk losing or weakening their will to fight the enemy. 


Admittedly, the movement is age-ing. The army is also age-ing real fast. The problem of every organization like that of the Party and of its army is succession. Your original cadres are either fading due to old age or weakening both physically and mentally. Imagine the thought of every single day, living in the mountains or hiding in the cities, these activities are exhausting. More than having the ideological toughness, you need a strong body to sustain yourself in armed struggle.


This leads us to one suggestion--maybe the Party, especially the Tiamson couple, would consider changing the strategies and tactics of the revolution? Maybe, it is time for them to consider mixing insurrectionary activities with that of building bases in the countrysides? Why?


As the movement ages and weakens, the State becomes stronger and bolder. Both organizations, if you compare, are not in equal footing. The State has an army of willing successors while the movement still lacks cadres as good as the "originals". 


While the movement spreads its revolutionary message in the countrysides, cadres here in the cities could, maybe, institute both political and military work to re-establish presence and image-building initiatives. People are slowly forgetting the "cause" and it would not really harm those in the movement if they start re-igniting the passions of the People in support of the revolution. 


Maybe it is also time for the Left to re-assess the situation and look for other models, like the one in Bolivia and Venezuela? Or even, review the successes of the Cuban revolution of 1959 where Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro successfully mixed both Leninist and Maoist theories into one highly successful strategy?


This is an opportune time to re-consider, since, the landscape has changed a lot since the 70's. Since Luis Jalandoni is here, maybe, he begins re-assessing the landscape by travelling a lot, especially in the Northern and Central Luzon provinces and maybe even Mindanao. And when he goes back to the Netherland, maybe, start discussing with Joma how best to approach the People's War.

Rizal's death led to Elite Leadership in KKK

What's so significant about Rizal's death that we celebrate it a full thirty days after Bonifacio's birth? Does this signify anything at all?

Is Rizal's death more important than his birth in June? I understand why we celebrate Bonifacio's birth instead of his death because, by commemorating his untimely death at the hands of traitors such as Arroyo's great great ancestor Major Makapagal, we will be opening a can of worms.

Bonifacio was betrayed by the ascendant elite who want to wrestle the leadership of the revolution from the middle class represented by the Supremo. His death marked the change in the complexion not only of the revolutionary struggle, but also, marked a paradigm shift in the philosophical world view of the entire organisation. Bonifacio's death would also re-ignite passions and open old wounds and reveal the unsavory legacy of such big names now as the Paternos, the Aguinaldos, the Makapagals, the Aquinos and the like---all traitors of the True Revolution but now, enjoying some semblance of respect for their alleged roles in the revolution.

Rizal's death is significant for three reasons: one, it further add fuel to the Katipunan revolt. It served as fodder which led to the "defining moment" of decisive strategic victory in 1899. (Let me disabuse your minds: contrary to public view, Rizal's death did not trigger the Katipunan revolt. The Katipunan has already declared a revolt prior to Rizal's execution). Two, Rizal's martyrdom became a "cause" instead of just merely an "incident". His stature in society lent credence to the blossoming revolutionary struggle thereby attracting other sectors to the Katipunan. His execution showed the elite that it's existence is being threatened by the true-blooded Spaniards who did'nt even considered those half-breeds as equals. And lastly, his death was perceived as an "omen", a "fulfillment of a prophecy", which, all the more even enjoyed more publicity since it was done at the turn of a century. It was both an historic and propitious moment. Propitious in the sense that it further fueled fears of a millenarian end and the cause of a New Beginning for the country.

Yet, by celebrating his death rather than his birth, we are sending a message that his demise has been far more important to us that the legacy of his successful life. Rizal's death will not be as controversial, as monumentally important or as significantly tremorous where it not for his popular works. Culturally, we Filipinos celebrate our birthdays more than Halloween, but in this case, we put greater importance to Rizal's death rather than his birthday. What kind of paradigm are we really following here? Or what sociological viewpoint do we want to stress? Are we then dismissing Rizal's contributions to the medical field and now recognizing that, apart from Noli and Fili, Rizal's legacy in imparting new ideas in those fields which he so took part of, are miniscule compared to this contemporaries? Are we then, indirectly saying that, apart from his death, truly, Rizal is no more than a mere eye doctor who happened to have many girlfriends and wrote two novels and who came from a perfumed life but who elected to live a Spartan one because of his previous experience at the hands of two politically incorrect Spanish officers? Had he not died in Bagumbayan, will we ever even look at him as a hero?

Probably not, because at that time, the Katipunan has already succeeded the La Liga Filipina as the ascendant revolutionary organisation. Bonifacio already launched the revolt prior to Rizal's death so it is not historically accurate to say that Rizal's death led him to revolt. No. Rizal's death just crystallized the united front against colonialism. It just lead to a realization of the elite of the futility of further supporting the foreign power and the importance of seizing leadership of the blossoming revolt from a middle class millenarian believer to a Republican.

Rizal's death just signified the beginning of a leadership shift of the revolution from the masses to the "enlightened" caciques who were fighting a different cause, far, far different from the "cause" of the masses. Prior to the ascendancy of the Pinoy elite clique to the Katipunan leadership, the "cause" of the masses can be described as "agrarian" based. When leadership changed hands with the demise of the Supremo, the "cause" changed from "agrarian" to "nationalism" or even another abstract concept as "Republicanism".

The paradigm shift is premature since the previous Katipunan concept has not been distilled as yet by the masses who supported it. But since the change has been abrupt, it also affected the very nature and conduct of the revolutionary struggle. Worse, the Katipunan was infiltrated by the caciques which further weakened the entire struggle. That explains why, after nearly in victory over the Spanish, the movement was weak when the Americans came. Precisely because the support structures were absent during the arrival of the new conquerors. And what are these structures? The masses serve as the Katipunan structures. But since, there was a disjunct between "cause" and "prevailing belief", the structures crumbled. This, historically, is what Rizal's death really signified.

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.

Gloria, the Demon Infant

A jubilant Joma Sison called Gloria the "demon infant". Joma took a dig against Gloria after being freed by the Dutch government due to lack of evidence. "This demon infant", says the ideological head of the longest-running insurgency in the world, "..made all these trumped up charges against me, making my life a living hell." Hehehe. Now you know.

The last time I saw Joma seethed with anger was in 1990. That year saw the open confrontation between RJs and RAs. As a young activist at the University of the Philippines-Diliman, I also experienced being caught in the middle of the raging ideological debates. Some of us were tagged military informants, military adventurists, deviants and what-have-you. The mere mention of the 1959 Cuban revolution caused discomfort among the young cadres.

These clashes between the Politburo members and ex-Politburo members caused great calamity to the party. Many of my friends dropped out of the scene, never to be seen again. Others stayed but after a few years, dropped out. Some, like me, went on our lives, still struggling against a disordered society. We struggle yes. We are still socialists. But my method is now totally different. Its still a revolution. But it is closer to the 1959 Cuban coup and the Thai model than the 1949 Chinese revolution. It is more of Trotsky than Stalin.

Many of my comrades are still true-blue socialists but we don't want to be dragged into the debate that split the party. We are men of action. And what we aspire for is the creation of a military-civilian government with socialist bent. That is what I am fighting for.

Joma represents the old guards. Some of the new party members still see him as an idol, while many see him as just an icon. When demon infant smiled broadly with Joma's arrest, many actually laughed, not because of what happened, but because GMA could be a great fan of Joma. With this arrest, she has revived the shagging career of the man from Ilokos.

Gloria should let the CPP-NPA be. Whatever she says in public, the CPP-NPA-NDF will survive the ravages of time. It will survive even beyond Joma. It will not wither away. It will not be destroyed. Many regimes have tried, yet failed to even break its backbone. Why? Because those who believe in its cause remains in the party. It may probably evolve into something different a few years from now, after probably the demise of the party's ideologue, yet, still, it will espouse the Chinese model. The party will kill itself. No one can defeat it. It will either assume a different form to conform with modernization, but its soul will remain the same. Old dogs are hard to change. This is the same as the party.

Even a demon infant cannot defeat the party of the people

The Dark Night of Our Souls

Martyrs, they say, undergo a phase of doubt in their lives. Before they become holymen, they first suffer a phase of the severest temptation. This phase is called the dark night of their souls.

Our soldiers right now are faced with the same dilemma. Should they continue to serve an illegitimate president or serve the People, the rightful Power of the Nation? Should they blindly follow the "chain of command" though it continues and proves to be immoral, corrupt and bereft of moral authority to govern? Should they stain their hands with blood of their brothers just to satiate the lust of a few hawks in the corridors of power?

Such a dilemma exists. For one, soldiers are common people. They feel what the people feel. They suffer what the people are continually suffering. Day to day, soldiers worry about their poor, impoverished families. They sacrifice their lives, but for what? To support an illegitimate president and an immoral war? Is their sacrifice worthy enough?

Now is the time for soldiers to ponder their present state of affairs. Now's the moment for them to pray hard and decide. They must choose between being blind followers of evil men. Or, be martyrs and fight these evil men that lurks in the corridors of power.

O enlightened soldiers of the Filipino People! Seize your destinies! Now is the time to make history.

A New Ideology

Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban wrote extensively on JoAl's political theorem. Though JoAl's concept has been there since the 80's, it deserves a review for two reasons: one, it remains relevant and two, it justifies a reiteration.

Our present condition needs immediate solution. The solution is political, not economic. Our economy is stable. It cannot just be totally affected by any moves, whether political or terrorism. Therefore, any change in the present set of administrators will definitely not lead to an economic crash of Argentinian proportions.

JoAl believes in a revolution, led by Caudillos. There must be a change in the socio-political system, JoAl writes because this will correct the age-old problems besetting the nation. This revolution must be led by the soldier who suffers like the common tao. The change, though revolutionary, must not change the economic system. The economic system remains the proposed system. It is the political structure which needs immediate change.

I concur with JoAl's observation. And I fully support a revolution to be lead by our enlightened soldiers.

First stage---- neutralize the weak.
Second stage--create favorable scenarios
Third stage----wait for a dramatis causa
Fourth stage---launch the storm
Fifth stage-----neutralize anti-revolutionary forces
Sixth stage-----Establish councils
Seventh stage---Peace & Order

Views from the Sidelines

I've read enough to be convinced that a new Philipppine Revolution should be launched now.

Our country has so much promise. One, our economy is strong and holding itself up against globalization. Two, most of our people are beginning to realize their power. Despite the massive fraud last elections, the people showed how disgusted they were in the state of affairs that they voted for Trillianes. He stood for something, an ideal that the people shared. Three, people are slowly being organized. Unlike the tumultuous 60's where people join socialist groups, people are organizing their own groups. Fourth, young people are beginning to occupy sensitive posts in the government, bringing with them new, fresh ideas for reform and growth. And fifth, Filipinos from abroad are starting to participate in active people empowerment. These Filipino-Americans are bringing their knowledge, their skills and experience into the country, enriching the fertile soil of the Fatherland and contributing towards growth and development.

However, much have been done, few have changed--in the political scene.

We are still wracked by political dissension. We have an administration whom the people distrust. We have "pseudo-leaders" occupying sensitive executive posts, who ascended Olympus by merely having a political surname. Wars are exploding left and right, North to South, Congress to Senate, Provincial Capitol to Municipalities.

We have a weak state. Due to its weakness, it tries to flex its muscles by using legal weapons. Despite its legal arsenal, the people remain defiant. Thousands of our poor brothers and sisters prostitute themselves to their new slave masters--the Arabs and those with almond eyes. Thousands more desperate go to the mountains to fight for principles. Others go to the route less taken--turning into bandits and petty criminals. The State tries to implement the law with less success.

Counter-state forces remain weak and equally discredited. One reason why an EDSA remains a far-fetched idea is the inability of the opposition to lead. The "Genuine Opposition" is not an opposition at all. They are pseudo dissenters. These "oppositionists" oppose for convenience. They are not in power. They lust for more power, that's why they dissent. These old faces want a comeback. They had their own sweet time in government but wanted to revivew their political careers, sidelined by a new elite.

Obviously, both the administration and the opposition have negated themselves. This is the condition today that merits the entry of a 3rd force--a movement that has its own ideology, its own philosophy, its own concept of a true opposition and a more effective administration.

This is a movement that is a conglomeration of every Filipino ideal, every one's aspiration, every one's paradigm for the future. This is a movement of the enlightened Filipinos. This is a movement that does not distinguish between Left nor the Right, but a movement that encourages capitalist competition under a strong socialist-oriented government.

This is a movement of New Men, pursuing a New Revolution. And this blog is dedicated to them.