Rodrigo Roa Duterte: Under a Socialist Lens

Duterte claims the "Left" will die for him.
Where did he get that idea, when he is not even a true
Socialist? 

Philippine president Rodrigo Roa Duterte is fond of claiming to be the only president elected from among the poor classes. By harping his "proletarian roots", Duterte claims to be speaking on behalf of the poor and destitute among the socio-economic classes of Philippine society.

Before we go on an in-depth analysis of Duterte, let me just address this claim--Duterte does not belong to the poor, the very same way, former president Joseph Estrada had claimed before that he also was born poor. Both gentlemen--who rode on the rising tide of populism to power---are members of the professional classes who sprung from the capitalist system. Their familial roots can be traced as those from families who are classified as a lower sub-stratum of the politico-socio-economic elite.

Duterte's grandfather was a Chinese immigrant who assumed the surname "Roa" out of deference to the lawyer who facilitated his immigrant status. The Roas became extremely wealthy while Rodrigo's father was a lawyer by profession and became a member of the political elite. Compared with Estrada's, Duterte's status is higher because his maternal and paternal lineages belonged to economically wealthy and politically influential families. Hence, I don't see anything near proletarian levels for this man.

Compared with his peers, yes, maybe Duterte is poorer than them. Duterte's friends include the Alcantaras, the Floreidos, the Lims, Cos and Yaps---economically dominant families from the South. These families had strong ties with China because they do business with Chinese firms. For decades, these families have tried to scale up the social ladder, something that is now dominated by Iberian-American-Chinese families of old.

Baratz and Grigsby define poverty as a "a severe lack of physical and mental well-being, closely associated with inadequate economic resources and consumption." Duterte never ever lacked anything material in his life, especially during those times when he was a student. He even claimed that he spent seven years in high school, a proud achievement for him, which he always says during his speeches. He probably thought that this claim is good, because majority of the poor in the Philippines did not reach college, and most are just high school graduates. But to say that this is an "inspiring thought" is overstretching it. Duterte became a Duterte not because he did not finish high school--he became one because he passed the bar, became a lawyer, and is influential enough, that friends allowed him to be a fiscal and eventually, was appointed public official and eventually elected mayor.

Duterte's actions and statements are laced with observations from "down below", according to several columnists and analysts. These views are those of a man who, for 22 years, had lorded over the politics and social life of Davaoenos, and for several years had a direct experience socializing with members of the provincial elites as well as the lumpen proletariat.

At best, we can call Duterte's thoughts as pseudo-Socialism---closer to the ideas of National Socialism rather than pure Socialism. Duterte's thoughts came from bits and pieces of his own personal take on Philippine reality, validated by the views of those whom he came into contact with, and are not entirely organized based on a purely Socialist framework.

One example is Duterte's belief on the non-rehabilitation of drug addicts. A "Socialist" Duterte would not want these drug addicts killed or exterminated. A "Socialist" Duterte would want their rehabilitation because every Socialist values human life. The only one who would probably advocate this kind of solution is Adolf Hitler, who had views of human reality using Aryan race lens. Thoughts of exterminating 4 million drug addicts and pushers remind one of the destructive tactics of the National Socialists under Hitler who thought of Jews as cattle, and were ready for systematic slaughter.

Duterte's predilection on Federalism does not, in any way, prove his "Socialist" self. Federalism is a governance model, which is essentially a modern version of Feudalism except that what is being distributed is power and resources. Analyzing Federalism, it is more of pseudo-socialism rather than distributive or managerial Socialism.

Yes, some countries adopt the Federal form while under the aegis of Communist or Socialist parties. However, one must closely observe that these countries did not adopt Socialist economies. Meaning, Socialism is not deeply rooted and is used only as a framework for politics and as the underlying policy for bureaucratic processes and systems.

Federalism is being promoted as a solution to poverty. Federalists say poverty exists because of underdevelopment. There are no outside investments because these areas lack the infrastructure necessary to encourage investments. There are no infrastructure because public funds go elsewhere, and are being controlled and manipulated by the Powers managing the central government.

By giving federated regions the power of the purse, many see this as the most efficient way of downloading the economic gains which are now centralised under Malacanan and its economic allies. By re-distributing power, from the center to different stated “Federal regions,” public funds can now be efficiently utilised, unlike now where funding projects go thru the national parliamentary which uses a very slow approval system. Federalists harp that locals know what the conditions are in their respective localities. Hence, there would be more efficient use of public resources.

Meaning, this setup will only bring back the power of determining projects to local politicians, which is “pork” or PDAF in a more legal and acceptable form. Under Federalism, it would now be acceptable for local politicians to determine what projects do they want implemented, how best to distribute these projects to economic and political allies and how best to keep economic gains for themselves and up to what extent the people would get from these public funds.

This strategy will not work because these "federated regions" will still be controlled by politico-economically dominant elites. Looking at the landscape right now, we find that local economies are controlled by political power centers. Politicians are themselves economic overlords or at best, agents of economically dominant families. Federalism will not change how wealth is being distributed. Conversely, it will even fully centralised wealth to a chosen few—those who lord it over the parliaments of federated states.

What Federalism would bring about is a re-invigorated set of elites who now would feed on public monies instead of private capital for their own personal wealth and gain. Instead of socializing power and resources, in Federalism, we will now create regions ruled by dominant powers who will use the police power of the Federated state to further tighten the chains of the proletariat classes, which will bring forth more isolation, destitution and alienation.

This will not even abolish the hold of economically dominant families who now own 56% of this country's resources. By Duterte's lead, this will just surely increase the power of his oligarchic friends who claim lordship over provincial lands and resources. Thru Federalism, Duterte's oligarchs will now get the capital (they would get it thru public funds since they would now dominate Federated states) to compete with the 40 or so families comprising the National Oligarchs.

Meaning---Federalism will be used as a brute weapon of the rural Oligarchs (most of them landlords and bureaucrat capitalists) against the Metro-based Oligarchs who have benefitted from the return to a neo-liberal environment. It will even bring about the return of traditional power centers who lost their wealth during the tumultuous dictatorship of Marcos.

Is this the Socialist framework we so aspire for? No.

We have a problem on poverty, which arises due to the flawed distribution of this country's resources. Why is there a warped distribution of resources? This is a manifestation of the domination of a few of the means of production. Since the means of production will not be socialized, expect profit to always be under the hold and control of a few.

Without changing the socio-economic and political landscape, federalizing the Philippines will not solve the poverty problem but would instead exacerbate it. Without changing property and ownership relations, poor families in Federated states will not have sufficient resources to improve their economic lives.

The fact is---by federalizing these regions; this will even lead to a de-prioritization of land reform because by Federal edict, the state parliament can surely pass a law not recognizing land reform. And there is also a question of the adoption of laws---how many civil rights stated in our Civil Code will be recognized? Surely, Federated states will have their own penal codes--how many of these crimes stated in our Revised Penal Code will still be "criminal"? How many executive orders and bills criminalizing certain acts like money laundering, land grabbing, and environmental laws would be adopted?

And with the further globalization of resources, expect intense competition between Duterte's elites ranged against those 40 or so families who now dominate the entire national economy. This will surely stunt the intended growth of this country affected by the never-ending competition for resources between and among these elites, leaving the rest of the Filipino people, holding an empty bag.

We would have a situation where several Federated states conform or have strong ties with stronger capitalist powers such as China or the United States while others are not. There would surely be a more blatant manifestation of socio-economic inequality, more severe than what we have right now.

So, then, realizing this, who is Duterte if a Socialist puts him under an analytical microscope?

Duterte is a true representative of his class.

Duterte is realizing his pseudo-Socialist thoughts based on his bourgeois existence. He is a true representative of his socio-economic class, and is their poster boy. Duterte serves the interests of the rural Oligarchs who are aiming to use state resources to keep in toe and in competition with the present set of dominant oligarchs. There is now a conscious attempt at using state funds for wealth generation. Look at the number of conglomerates formed by these elites and how many of these firms are now jacking for projects under the Private-Public Partnership (PPP)?

(This phenomenon is not something new. It was the dictator Marcos who thought of this when he declared Martial law in 1972. Marcos used state power in the hopes of dismantling the old oligarchs. He failed, because of his avarice. Marcos kept some traditional oligarchs, convinced them to partner with them, while those oligarchs who sided with the opposition, he destroyed.

In the middle of martial law, Marcos undertook an audacious enterprise---he used public monies for infrastructure development. Though a brilliant political strategist, Marcos was not as bright in economics. When public coffers went dry due to lack of economic activities, Marcos went to foreign banks for loans. Foreign and domestic loans thus sky rocketed.

When foreign funds went to government, it was then that Marcos thought of centralizing these resources and thus, was born the conjugal dictatorship. Afraid of resuscitating his political and now economic enemies, Marcos kept these monies within his own clique. Furthermore, Marcos carved the economy into enclaves for his chosen few, who now became rich and therefore, cemented their statuses as the new elites. While the old elites became rich thru their skillful manipulation of capital, this new set of elites became skillful in commissioning their way out of government projects, and using these monies to enrich themselves and fund their own enterprises. Thus, was born bureaucrat capitalists who used public positions for wealth generation)

His social consciousness is not at all Socialist because he does not have any idea of how to transform this country from its present Capitalist state into a Socialist state or at best, its National Democratic state. For many, this is actually the right time for this country to take hold of its History, and slowly transcend. How?

1. Creation and nationalization of industries
2. Socialization of property and ownership relations including genuine land reform
3. Defeat of traditional power centers thru categorization of them as counter-revolutionaries and sup plantation of them by Patriotic elements
4. Improvement of relations of production by managerial socialism
5. Improvement in state economic planning

The best that this country will ever get from a Duterte administration is an improvement in social services---palliatives undertaken by Capitalist states to tame the people and prevent social inequalities from breaking out into the open and lead to a revolutionary situation. However, peoples are slowly becoming socially conscious. Technology is now allowing people to have a firm and correct grasp of their realities. Thoughts, views and analyses, which were, in the past, kept inside the halls of libraries and academies, are now in the open and ready for consumption. Very soon, these views will influence 33 million Filipinos who are constantly online and these people would realize that the best option for them is launching an authentic revolution that would aim towards true transformation by a change in the ownership of the means of production.

Duterte does not have enough powers to prevent such a crisis from happening. Since the Philippine economy is fast integrating into the global Capitalist system, expect further the widening of wealth distribution between those who have and those who have not, leading to an eventual break. Right now, we are experiencing such a sign by the acts of the United States which, slowly yet surely, is doing something to weaken our economy. Next year, we will see more direct tactics to be employed by this Imperialist power, whose President-elect, is bent on reviving the glory of the United States as a global superpower.  By relying and without changing the way our economy is being managed, expect nothing to change soon.

Will the American electorate vote Obama out of office?

US President Barack Obama's voting numbers are the same as that of Republican bet Mitt Romney, a clear set-back already for the First Black American president. Three years ago, Obama's numbers were astronomically high, compared with his nearest competitor. The American public was caught with the Obama bug.

Now, with the economic downturn and the rising pessimism within American society, Obama's star waned and is on the brink of death. There is not enough "Obama-nisms" to counter Republican accusations of economic and external affairs mismanagement. The public is not enamored anymore with stirring speeches reviving the American dream nor talks about overcoming the present problems being encountered by the capitalist giant. With the global recession entering its sixth year, and economic analysts predicting another financial winter coming, there is simply no words anymore fit to reduce anxieties and worries.

Many Americans are realizing that these problems are direct results of the genetic ills of a capitalist state. Overproduction has resulted to stoppage of production in small and medium sized enterprises, the bedrock by which capitalist America depended on for so many years. With the death of SMEs came the rise of giant corporations which knows no race, no nation, and no government when it comes to cutting down costs of production. The locus of production has shifted from American factories to China's million man production crews. This translated into Chinese having jobs, while Americans were left in the lurch.

The middle class, the vanguard class of the American state and society, has dwindled, while the numbers of America's billionaires ballooned. Resources have all been centralized and controlled by a few. With a global downturn, these resources remained under close control and management of a remorse-less elite.

Obama's re-election depended on the fulfillment of his promise of making life more comfortable for Americans. His administration, however, even failed in pushing for substantial legislation which would have eased the hardships being experienced by Americans. Peace and order worsened, and the economy remained in the doldrums.

Will the American electorate negate Obamanism and usher in an iron-fisted Republican crew to save them and their economy from further damage?

Martial Law--what it really was and why we suffered

A week from now, and we will be commemorating that day when former President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law. It was September 21, 1972 when "Macoy", the monicker of the former dictator, signed Proclamation 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial law.

Proclamation 1081 should be understood in what it intended to happen--it was a strongest expression of the State against what it deemed to be a "creeping" Communist menace. Understand that unlike today, when Communism and Socialism have been deemed legal and hence, not necessarily a serious threat to the stability of the Republic, back then, there was a serious tug-of-war between global powers. There were two contending forces then--the United States which champions capitalism, and the U.S.S.R., a union of Soviet Republics, which positioned itself as the leading guidance in Marxism-Leninism. 

Asia was the battlefield of ideologies at that time. Communist armed movements have sprouted in almost all parts of Asia. China, which had its revolution in 1949, was the first big convert to Socialism, although at that time, it was entering a cultural flux. 

Vietnam, Cambodia and some countries in mainland Asia were fighting ideological wars. Socialism was so pervasive in the minds of that generation, that the entire world were actively discussing it and sharing opinions and views. In the Middle East, Socialist forces were also ousting governments and changing the very landscape of the once US-dominated region.

The Philippines was no different. At that time, our country was at the height of decadence. Our imports were being sold everywhere in the known world, both in capitalist and non-capitalist countries. However, a great disparity exists between trading partners bigger than us and our country. This disparity has affected the economic structure that, as we increase trade, it makes us poorer than richer. Our so-called "trade parity" agreements were not as encouraging as what we thought it would be, because frankly at that time, we were still recovering from the serious effects of war. Industries were just recovering. The social landscape, meanwhile, still bore marks of a debilitating war and the subsequent agrarian rebellion that happened shortly after.

Having said that, those sixties and early seventies saw a society being ruled by petty Kings who thought that they own a piece of Philippine territory. They sowed terror throughout the archiepelago. Crime and violence were at its all time high. People can't really go out from their homes without equipping themselves with arms. 

Beneath the veneer of a disquieted society, being forced to acquiesce from a vastly emerging new ilustrado, lies a social movement waiting for things to reach a boiling point. This movement was a product of decades old problems tied with land ownership. The sixties saw how these movements grew and grew until eventually, it grew into a Socialist-inspired insurgency.

This insurgency, having ideological dominance in the social and public spheres, became a serious threat to the survival of a decadent capitalist society. 

The New Ilustrado represented by new emergent powers like the Marcoses saw this movement as a direct threat to their very existence. Socialism called for a drastic overhaul of the entire system, which, at that time, was a necessity, if the People wanted to grow economically. 

This Socialist movement took arms against the legitimate government. Thus, the State had to unleash its strongest defense---a legal prescription against a brewing rebellion.

Had the strategy back then was patterned along the Cuban Revolution, Martial law would not have lasted that long. Yes, there was a growing agrarian-based revolt, yet, it had reached its apex when the Huks nearly took control of the capital during Taruc's time. Now, that it was marginalized, the new Socialists should have realized was its enormous influence and power over even remnants of the national bourgeoisie. It should have exploited it to a point of reaching a full revolution.

No, the New Socialists concentrated on going to the countryside and fight the enemy away from the very center of power. It was upon the false assumption that the movement was still weak and small. Yes, in terms of military preparedness, it was. The ratio of combatants versus state agencies was lopsided in favor of government. 

What it lacked in firepower, the movement compensated in influence. Socialism was a pervasive public topic during those times, and many among urban dwellers had subscribed to it. 

But no. The error of previous movements past, afflicted even the New Socialists who thought of battalions against battalions. They forgot the concept of a true revolution--that revolutions sprout from the warm loam soil of public discontent. Had these New Socialists concentrated on bringing into life the revolution "from within" and poured their energies into transforming the center into a revolutionary hub, Martial law would not have lasted that long. 

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.

EDSA 1986 and the Philippine Left: The Subversion of the Subversives

Ka Popoy Lagman--a leading figure
in the anti-dictatorship struggle

Many have written about this, and this entry will try to present a newer perspective about this. Yes, EDSA 1986 should have been the culminating event of a nearly one decade and a half struggle of the Philippine Left Movement against the Marcos regime. Much have been said about the lost opportunity, particularly when the Philippine Left boycotted the snap elections and lost the initiative when it allowed the moderates to occupy that stretch of EDSA fronting the Camp Aguinaldo. Some even wrote that EDSA was practically snatched away from the Left and eventually, given on a silver platter, to the moderates who comprised the yellow army. 


Really now, EDSA would not have happened without the substantive contribution of the Philippine Left in terms of presenting an ideology as well as logistics. The Philippine Left gave two precious things to the movement preceding EDSA 1986---logistics and a guiding ideology. Those who were born after 1986 are clueless who Voltaire Garcia was or EDJOP or Macliing Dulag. They probably heard of Alex Boncayao but never read about his heroic exploits. 


Hundreds have sacrificed their lives and the futures of their families just so the present generation will be able to enjoy a modicum of freedom now. This freedom comes at a high price.  At least a generation sacrificed their futures just so this generation would be able to live in peace. 


Whenever we read about EDSA, we read in scant accounts, the sacrifices of members of the Philippine Left. What we never read was how a boy named Filemon Lagman lost a brother and a wife during the war against the Marcos dictatorship. We never read of how an Atenean named Edgar Jopson lost his life serving the masses. Or the stories of hundreds of Filipino intellectuals who were brutally hurt or killed or those who remain missing or those who remain incarcerated even after the "restoration" of democracy in these parts. 


We never heard or probably those who have the duty of teaching the present generation of these things decided not to, or hide these things from the eyes of this generation. 


IN all these twenty six years, we are fed with misinformation, that this person or that person was part of the "creative team" that engineered or planned EDSA 1986. We are now being made to believe that it was all the Aquinos, their kin, their relatives, their associates, and their throng of believers created EDSA 1986. 


Credit this to the subversion of the subversives---the conscious shift of the leading figures of the Philippine Left from total adherence to the correctness of the revolutionary path to the willing subversion of their principles in exchange for the moderate way. 


Credit this also to the unwillingness of the Party to recognize that things change, that these changes can be controlled using scientific laws and that change is always towards the attainment of a specific goal, that is ultimate revolutionary success.


The Philippine Left lost its most precious sons like it did during the 1896 Revolution, when unrevolutionary, un-scientific and un-Marxist-Leninist precepts were injected into the mainstream ideological framework.


The Philippine Left lost most of its sons and daughters who were made to believe that change can happen within the system--something unscientific and un-Marxist. Had these Leftist leaders hold on to the true Marxist-Leninist way, they would have prevented themselves from falling into the moderate trap.


The Philippine Left lost most of its sons when they abandoned and rejected their own process of understanding the Proletariat and reverted back to their bourgeois ways. 


The reversion from a revolutionary to a bourgeois is easy. The complete transformation of a bourgeois to a revolutionary is difficult and fraught with dangers. 


The Philippine Left lost its leadership in the people's movement because it consciously abandoned the focus of every revolutionary movement--that the reason for its existence lies in shaping and eventually unleashing the Power of the New Man.


The New Man is Socialist. The New Man is proletarian. The New Man rejects every form of bourgeois puppetry to the failed promises of capitalism.


What happened these past few years is the reverse---the revolutionary donning the bourgeois skin and rejecting the New Man altogether. 


It is time for the revolutionary to rediscover himself--be with the mnasses, be one with the masses, and be the masses. Then, seize opportunities and create or establish a society which will allow the emergence of the New Man.

Filipinos are fighting corporate greed in their own country

Wait for my latest paper, the Philippine societal pyramid, an analysis of the current state of Philippine society. This is a no-nonsense paper which deeply analyses the fissures within the socio-economic superstructure. 


As of this point, thousands have already encamped at Times Square. People are protesting against corporate greed, the obvious result or consequence of promoting Capitalism. Like in the movie Matrix Revolution, people have awakened from their stupor and realized that they are being sucked up by the system by a privileged group composed of a few individuals. That the world they knew as "real" is just a 3-D mockup of the true reality of the human condition. 


Like in the Philippines, the human condition is worsening due to the stresses in the economic systems of the world. Many have realized it and have now taken some action by joining these protests, now spreading like wildfire in different modern cities of the world. From Times Square, the realization has now spread to Rome, Italy. Italians are themselves protesting against the existing system of exploitation called Capitalism. 


These protests, says Leonor Briones, a popular economist, is expected to hit Manila. If groups of similar mindsets would just unite under one platform, then, this is not a remote possibility like what Malacanang thinks, but a definitive reality. 


Fact is, I believe that there will come a time, possibility during this administration, that individuals of the same Marxist-Leninist ideological perspectives, unite under one banner, under one political party.


The signs are there, the dissolution of the existing Communist Party of the Philippines, and the eventual takeover of young activist leaders who are hard-core Socialists. These new leaders will be more acceptable of political reality, of the need to unite all groups under one political belief and under one democratic ideal. This is not a remote possibility, given the fact, that political reality dictates it. Right now, groups are converging under one banner, that is, the legitimate concern about staging a true, legitimate revolution totally different from the pseudo revolution being promoted by several so-called democratic socialists serving the Aquino administration. 


Socialists or not, I believe that this time will definitely come, when groups realize that they are fighting an administration that is totally subservient to the wiles and caprices of Big Business and totally blind on the greater good.