Pol. Ideology 45: Left Intellectualism Means Abandonment of Socialism

Last July 1-2, 2013, I butted in the fb posting of a friend – fellow UP Diliman and UP Sapul alumni, also a fellow Rotarian – Raffy Aquino, a lawyer. Our exchanges below. Posting with permission from him and Louie, thanks guys.

Meanwhile, photos below, some of the known student activists in UP Diliman in the early to mid-80s (the late Ferdinand Marcos was still the President) that I can remember. top to borrom, left to right:
Raffy Aquino and Lean Alejandro; Fidel Nemenzo, David Celdran and Sarge Colambo; Noe Pangilinan and Malou Mangahas. The last two were former editor in chief of the Philippine Collegian, the student paper in UP Diliman.

This is four pages long including the photos, enjoy.

Raffy Aquino

27 years ago, in 1986, a year before I finally left Diliman, in an article published in the Collegian shortly after that historic February --

"An apparent component of a progressive counter-culture is intellectual ferment at the classroom level. A perennial criticism hurled at the leadership of the student movement is its neglect of the classrooms as arenas of struggle. The criticism presupposes that should committed students religiously attend their classes, they will be able to competently defend, assert, and convince their classmates and teachers of the superiority of their ideas. The presupposition is not always a valid one. This underscores the need for the “intellectualization” of the student movement as a precondition for a progressive counter-culture at the grassroots level. The movement must engage in a tremendous amount of theoretical work, technical study, and social research. A general knowledge of what the progressive current stands for will no longer suffice. This knowledge will have to be broken down into its component parts and expressed in precise and concrete language. The student movement must systematically forge linkages with progressive sections of the faculty, technocracy, the professional sector, and the rest of the intelligentsia, and thereafter, exploit these linkages to “intellectualize” itself by further amassing and creating progressive knowledge."

Wala na yatang saysay ang mga hangaring ganito.

Top of Form

Louie Checa Montemar meron pa naman... kasi mas lumalabas na nga sa iba't ibang porma ang social concern at sociological imagination, at lalong wala namang monopolyo ang mga "tibak" na talaga sa dalumat ng "relevance". 

Nonoy Oplas Raffy, if student activists will click to that harsh intellectualization of the movement, none will become left-leaning. If you talk about more personal responsibility (they cannot even be responsible in their studies and regularly flunk), they will be drawn to desist and dislike more government responsibility. The main reason why such activism remains noisy is because they dislike harsh intellectualization but only stupidization of old slogans and advocacies. Sige, debate na. 

Pilipinas Forum 26: On State-Party Relations

Although I have stopped being a Marxist-socialist by early 90s, somehow I still have some "hang-over" on some Marxist concepts until early 2000s. Here's one such discussion a decade ago, on the relationship between a political party and the state. This is 7 pages long, enjoy.
------------

State-Party Relations

January 2001

Nonoy, et al, Sometime ago I curiously read an article about certain communist intellectuals (not identified) talking about the time when there will be "separation of Party and state" ... just as the separation of church and state in capitalist countries.

They'd mean that the Party would just exert ideological influence and persuasion, not state or police power, to groups of individuals vying for public office over state policies and welfare.

If such were to happen and together with a genuine Bill of Rights, such socialist countries like Vietnam and China would not only catch up but even outdistance western countries. By then there would be a global convergence: social democracy (of the east) = democratic capitalism (of the west).

- Roy Picart

Roy, My understanding of state-party relations is:

(Pol.) Party - defines & explains the policies to the people, must aim to capture state power to implement said policies;

State - implements policies of the victorious pol. party. Though often in multi-party countries, the victorious pol. party enters into alliances with other smaller pol. parties to get majority seats in the legislature and to broaden its mass base and support. But in one-party states like China, Vietnam, N. Korea and Cuba, no need for party alliances as the opposition is always weak.

So in this definition, party-state separation of function is inherent in multi-party states. Such separation of function is also possible in one-party, communist governments. In slowly-democratizing communist govts. like China and Vietnam, state leaders and bureaucrats are not entirely accountable to their respective communist parties but to the general population, majority of whom are not party members. State leaders are striking a balance between their party (which is generally allergic to drastic reforms) and the general public (who want fast, wide-ranging economic liberalization and political democratization).

On social democracy, these are essentially the democratic capitalist states of the west at the moment. Specifically, the welfare states of Scandinavian and Western European countries. These capitalist countries sometimes turn off capitalist enterprises because of the high taxes which their govts. collect to give to the jobless (sometimes encouraging laziness), the sick, to subsidize their farmers, etc.

The convergence that you mention is actually happening now: capitalist countries that act like socialist states, and socialist countries that allow predominance of capitalist enterprises. Vietnam is a socialist country, but the streets of Hanoi, Saigon, Hue, etc. are full of tens of thousands of capitalist enterprises. China is a socialist country but Shanghai, Shenzen, even Beijing, are full of capitalist shops and firms.

Someday, ideologies will become good academic subjects in the schools worldwide, but they will lose their original spirits. They will soon converge with one basic ingredient that unifies their aspirations: information. Information will uplift world economies, substantially reduce poverty as we know it today. But information will never be made perfect for everyone. Just as the next guy has discovered his neighbor's "trade secrets", this neighbor has already developed a new product or service that is far superior to the one that was discovered by his competitor.

- nonoy

Dear Noy and Roy and All:

State-Party Relations:

Classical Marxism situates the relations between state and party within the framework of socialism as the class rule of the proletariat, and socialism as a transitional phase before society could progress to classless and stateless communism. State and party relations also relate to the conept of the "withering away of the state." The classics, in fact, may provide signposts in understanding the remaining socialist experiments.

The basic theoretical postulates on this matter may be outlined as follows:

a) Capitalism is an arrangement of social classes with the bourgeoisie exercising political hegemony over all the others, through the capitalist state;

b) The socialist revolution destroys this hegemony and transfers state power to the proletariat. Hence, Lenin defines socialism as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or "the proletariat organized as the ruling class";

c) The immediate function of the socialist state is to preserve the dominance of the proletariat, and to serve as the coercive instrument of the the working class. This coercive role means defending the Communist Party and defeating its class enemies, since the CP is the repository of the will of the ruling class (the proletariat). Note that the socialist state, as with all other states, remains a coercive organ of power, existing within society but also above it;

Pilipinas Forum 15: Debate on Edsa 2

Enjoy this 13-pages long exchanges and debate among members of pilipinasforum yahoogroups about the "Edsa 2 People Power Revolution" that occurred in January 2001. Being the co-founder and co-moderator of PF, also editor of the PF exchanges that I submitted to www.inq7.net (that site is now gone), I really learned a lot from the almost daily exchange of ideas from many members of the list then.
-----------

Debate on Edsa 2

February 2001

Edsa II was the successful transfer of presidential power from one section of the elite to another by the direct political action of a broad section of the population. Edsa II was by no means radical or revolutionary. Like Edsa I, Edsa II never threatened to overhaul the fundamental socio-economic hierarchies of Philippine society and never threatened to remove control of the Philippine state from the same dominant social strata.

Still Edsa II was a political moment with profound historical significance. What Edsa II evicted was a presidency supported by political dinosaurs, schooled in the comfortable cradle of martial law, accustomed to an uninformed, powerless and malleable citizenry, and given to governance which allowed a robust renaissance of the cronyism, patronage, and demagoguery. a presidency which failed to grasp the nature of its own obsolescence, and which continued to dabble in desperate conspiracies and maneuverings even as the forces of modernization were already literally closing in on it.

-- Raffy Aquino

My reservations about the world "people" and "broad section of the population" is that it is liberally construed to mean each and every Filipino (or even a majority of Filipinos). without being determined by Constitutionally sanctioned means to determine the world "people" (like referendum and general elections). I believe the danger lies in reducing representative democracy to participants in Edsa 2 and in other urban areas.

The logic behind the impeachment court is that since the Constitution will be removing a nationally-elected person out of his office, it should take a nationally-elected body to do it, and this is the reason why the Lower House cannot act as judges before the court, the Senate was the duly constituted authority to handle such cases. But the "people" went out of the streets and said that the Senate cannot do its job. How are we sure that Edsa 2 was the "sovereignty"? We thought it was, but what if it wasn't?

Institutions become weak when they fail to serve their purpose... in the crisis, their purpose was to determine the guilt of the president according to the articles of impeachment... and they were not able to execute this, ergo, institutional failure. The right to assembly is a Constitutional right, but it didn't say that we remove and replace Presidents with assemblies... so the senate compromised the process... okay, so who determines the "truth" now?

-- Poch Bermudez

As for the perception of the international community, I think, with the exception of a few, they have a positive perception with the installation of a new president. Why would representatives of different countries express their support to the administration of GMArroyo if they do not see the legitimacy of the new administration?

-- Jojo delos Reyes

They say history is written by the victors. Gloria Macapagal is in power, and I have no doubt that the best legal minds will be harnessed to give her Presidency every cloak of legitimacy possible. But here is the thing, if something were truly right is it so because of legal statutes and precedents. Is it so because of the ruling of one judge or even a hundred judges - or is something right because it is right, it is self-evident to any and the virtue of the act speaks for itself?

-- Victor Limlingan Jr.

What we have is only a partial victory, victory in a battle -- but not yet the war.

Already, some players of EDSA are acting like spoiled brats or deprived street kids grabbing for the goodies. Too much expectations on gov't give politicians and bureaucrats the reason to raise taxes, transform them into "development funds", line their pockets and just have the left-overs and crumbs trickle down to the masses -- whose leaders, in turn, cry about graft and corruption.

-- Roy Picart

Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?

These are the exchanges in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups that I edited, posted in inq7.net in March 12, 2001, 11 pages long. These discussions were made in February 2001.

--------

Is Marxism Still Relevant?

Popoy represented the largest organization with a definite ideology in calling for a socialist Philippines. When he and his group splintered from Joma Sison's CPP-NPA-NDF sometime in 1993, Popoy had at least 4 reasons for doing so:

(1) They reject the "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" mode of production analysis of Joma and the CPP. (2) Hence, they also reject the "national democracy" goal. (3) They reject the Maoist formulation that "the peasants (not workers) are the main army to change society" and that of "encircling the city from the countrysides", and (4) Corollarily, reject that "armed struggle is the primary form of struggle".

Instead, when Popoy and his team of underground people from the Metro Manila-Rizal Regional CPP Command, the explicit formulations are as follows:

1. The Philippines' mode of production is "predominantly capitalist".

2. Hence, the goal should be socialism, not "national democracy" ("national" meaning anti-colonial, "democracy" meaning anti-feudal).

3. The workers (don't own means of production, whether capital, factories, land, technology) are the main army to change things, and urban insurrection is the way to capture state power.

4. Other forms of struggle should be tapped to complement the armed urban struggle (Hence, Popoy and his group then advocated to participate in the 1986 snap elections, whereas Joma and the CPP called for its boycott).

Between the two, Popoy is more sophisticated ideologically than Joma Sison. I would even add that Popoy read and understand classic Marxism and Leninism literature better than Joma and his followers. The ideological debate and organizational rivalry between the 2 largest factions of the Philippine left has somehow worked for their mutual advantage and the workers in general. Just like big corporations benefiting from having fellow big competitors because they all strive to be more dynamic and innovative. How?

Organized workers have more options where they will be organizationally and ideologically affiliated. Before, it was only between the moderate TUCP and the radical KMU, plus other smaller independent labor federations. Popoy's BMP (bukluran ng manggagawang pilipino) represented a 3rd or 4th option for the workers. Just like businessmen and capitalists have options whether they'll be more active with PCCI or MBC or FPI or Rotary, etc.

Second, workers should be given the opportunity to be educated of the socialist alternative, and not just the nat-dem goal. The capitalists and politicians of this country for many years have veered away from the Adam Smith and David Ricardo type of capitalism, so they (the capitalists) gave workers a really bad kind and experience of capitalism. Perhaps approximating the capitalism of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. At the time when Marx called religion "the heart of the heartless world, the soul of the soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people." (though rabid anti-Marxists only quote the last line and omitted the first 2 lines).

Where to, Philippine left? Despite my sympathy and admiration for their hard dedication to politicize and mobilize people, especially the really poorer sectors of our society, I still cannot subscribe to their sentiment that we should immune or delink our economy from globalization and the world economy, that we should keep the protectionist veil and continue regulating many of our industries and the economy, that we should not privatize subsidy-dependent state corporations, etc.

Thus, since I believe that economic liberalization and not protectionism and regulation is the way, and the Philippine left (& the left elsewhere in the world) believe otherwise, I think the Philippine left will remain as a significant political voice in our society, but there's no way that it can seize state power to implement its protectionist advocacies.

--Nonoy Oplas




Nonoy, could you expound more on the leftist agenda? What exactly do they want? Go down the road of North Korea or Cuba? Do not the events in Russia and China discredit the case for Marxism, Leninism or Maoism as the case may be? I am guessing that their ideology was formulated in the 70's - do they account for sweeping changes in technology such as the internet? There are more Filipinos working abroad (5 million I think) versus those in Philippine Manufacturing (about 2 million I think) so what is their role in this workers rebellion.

How does that one go, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" - socialism and communism do have their appeal but outside the Israeli Kibbutz I cannot see real sustainable successful models.

-- Victor A. Limlingan Jr.