Ideologies Then and Now, the World and the Philippines

Man, by nature, must be freedom loving ever since dawn of civilizations. Democracy is probably the oldest known ideology. Another ideology, Liberalism, became notable in the 18^th century.

While Democracy and Liberalism are two distinct philosophies, they have big similarities so that early movements by progressives in Europe, like the French Revolution in the 18^th century, have been referred to as Liberal–Democratic.  The Filipino propaganda movement that culminated in the Philippine revolution of 1896 was of that character.

Everything evolves so do ideologies and philosophies. Democracy and Liberalism yesterday and today are not really exactly the same.

The 19^th century saw the birth and rise of Marxism. This ideology is a branch-off of Liberalism and Democracy. Marxism is quite similar to them except that it is keen on social classes, social class conflicts and social  class struggles.

Karl Marx [1818 – 1883] came in the era of the Industrial revolution. He called the new and emerging economy as Capitalism. He saw only two social classes in a capitalist society: one, the wage earners that he called Proletariat, and two, the owners of the means of productions that he called Bourgeoisie which is a word that was associated with “middle class” during the Feudal era.

That human history is about classes and class conflicts that caused societies to change i.e. that because of slave-master conflicts, slave societies gradually transformed into Feudal societies. Slave–master relations became peasant-landlord relationship. That Feudalism in turn gave rise to Capitalism. Peasant-landlord relations became worker-capitalist [employee-employer] relationship. That Capitalism will give rise to another system which he called Socialism.

Karl Marx defined State is an instrument of a class [has always been an instrument of a class, and will always be an instrument of a class]. That class struggle will end only with the end of classes, or in a classless society – a system he called Communism. While Marx himself favored armed overthrow of states, armed struggle is deemed not Marxist law. It was a strategy in their situation. It should be noted that there was no free election like  we have today during his time, or in the time of Vladimir Lenin in Russia and of Mao Zedong in China. Karl Marx, being a staunch materialist, had history of Slave and Feudal societies from where he based his projections and concepts for the future.

[In the time of Karl Marx, Socialism was an advanced theory because the first Socialist state, Russia, came to exist only in 1917, followed by China in 1949 - long after his death.]

Marxism makes interesting social political study as it affects the whole world. Its influence is global and has dominated more than half of the world today.

One  development in Marxism is the split of forces known as Revisionism. These movements were called Social Democratic [see Eduard Bernstein, 1850-1932. Also, Karl Johann Kautsky 1854-1938]. They are one with Marxism except for the means of achieving end. That at the rate of the initial advances gained by democracy, [right to education, right to vote, and human rights] Social Democrats foresaw armed struggle as becoming unnecessary. With the advances of the industrial revolution, the growth in size of the working class is inevitable. With all that, the political-economic  powers of the Bourgeoisie will recede while advance the political-economic powers of the Proletariat. The bourgeoisie will naturally be eaten up by the proletariat  in the process of social evolution. Revolution in the other hand aims at jumping short what naturally would take time for social change to complete a leap. In the case of slave and some feudal societies, it took millenniums to complete.  Russian and Chinese Marxist revolutions were leaps to Socialism from Semi-feudal and Feudal conditions skipping the stage of Capitalism.

With Marxist progressives came adversarial words like Liberal-Bourgeois and Bourgeois Liberalism. Attributed to them is the set of mind that is centered in the individual or the self with little or no regard for the community. I think Exceptionalism is an extension of them… a lingering spirit of [diminishing old  form of liberalism] that has not gone extinct yet.

Modern day political contest is a game of numbers. Indeed, will come a time in modern democracy when the so called bourgeoisie will be at the mercy of the so called proletariat. Maybe social minority can fall back to tyrannical measures but they are always  futile exercises in the end. Just  a matter of time as seen  in history.

Leftist struggle in the Philippines is basically Maoist. Mao Zedong [1893 – 1976] was a deviation from orthodox [proletariat vs bourgeoisie] Marxism during his time. Mao identified China’s situation as mainly a struggle of Chinese peasants against the Feudal lords. Philippine leftist struggle has been patterned after the Chinese experience.

Applied in legal political struggle, I think peasants versus landlords will not even win seats in the municipality level, much more win seats in district and national levels, in present day Philippines. It is an issue that has become too sectarian within a sector. It has become obsolete in a diminished feudalism like present day Philippines. [Peasants to mean tenants and serfs are practically imaginary characters today]

In the agricultural sector, I think the issue should revolve around advancement of agriculture, something blanket for the whole agricultural sector, which must reconcile with consumers’ interest as they conflict. And within that, is also the class conflict between the  miserable farm workers and the landowners many of whom are not really doing great, actually. [Since when the mode of production is Capital and no longer Feudal,  Landlords are also imaginary characters.]

Let’s face it, why can’t Leftists win regular seats in congress? I think it is because, fact or myth, they are associated with forcible physical elimination of social class as in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia  that are typical Leninist – Maoist revolutions.  Tyranny of any color, or just the mere prospect  of any of them,  is  not popular where democracy has fairly gained roots.  I think the national consciousness of Filipinos is at the level of seeking social justice and not on  elimination of classes.

Politics is also about perceptions and impressions of the masses; the stain of 6 decades of armed struggle is too deep an impression. Some of them are espousing Rightist ideas actually, legal political contest  for the Left  is  no easy high mountain for them to climb.

In legal political contest, definitely ideologies belong, or better be left in the classrooms. Legal political contest is all about what will sell.  Real problems of the people in real time, and solutions to them. What do the Filipino masses really want to buy.

Without political machinery and without money while confined in prison , somebody actually won an election. That‘s about the amazing victory of now Senator Gregorio Trillanes  in election  2007.  Question there is what made one candidate tick over another? There is no single reason.

Absolutely, it shows the Filipino people know what they want.  But they can only choose from what are there … they like them or not.