Feb 1, 2017 - of Education Region XI declared that the schools were ânot closed but just not ... policing, not only the trade within the Asia Pacific region, but also the ... San Juan addresses the problem of global violence and how it is ...
VOLUME 4 | NUMBER 1 FEBRUARY 2017
Volume 4 Number 1 | February 2017
Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND) and
Commission on Concern 11: Rights of Teachers, Researchers and Other Education Personnel, International League of Peoples’ Struggles (ILPS)
PINGKIAN Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-imperialist Education Volume x Number x ISSN-2244-3142
Copyright© 201x CONTEND and ILPS All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, except for brief quotations for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, without permission of the publisher. Editors Gonzalo Campoamor II (University of the Philippines) Peter Chua (San Jose State University, USA) Gerry Lanuza (University of the Philippines) Roland Tolentino (University of the Philippines) Cover Design Manolo Sicat Layout Tilde Acuña
International Advisory Board Delia Aguilar (University of Connecticut) Joi Barrios (University of California, Berkely) Jonathan Beller (Pratt Institute) Ramon Guillermo (University of the Philippines, Diliman) Caroline Hau (Kyoto University) Bienvenido Lumbera (University of the Philippines, Diliman) Elmer Ordonez Robyn Magalit Rodriguez (University of California, Davis) Epifanio San Juan, Jr. (University of Texas, Austin) Neferti Tadiar (Barnard College) Judy Taguiwalo (University of the Philippines, Diliman) Ed Villegas (University of the Philippines, Manila)
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION
1
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY SECTION Ang Neoliberal na Opensiba ng APEC at Epekto Nito sa Edukasyong Pilipino Jose Ma. Sison The Parallax View of Alienation and Anomie through the Monetization of Education: Interview on Teacher’s Day using Young Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, George Simmel Jasmin Ado, Bernard Santos, Moises P. Jusoy, Marc Del Christian P. Reyes NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC SCHOLARSHIP
Nation/state, Nationalism, and Global Violence E. San Juan, Jr. On the Imperialist Cultural Offensive J. de Lima Philosophy of the masses: The contemporary role of philosophy in the Philippines Regletto Aldrich Imbong
A Critique of the Proposed Amendments in the Philippine Constitution Edberto M. Villegas In the Defence of the Actuality of Communism: Why you shouldn’t be afraid of it Jasmine Ado Neo-liberal na Atake sa Mundo ng Paggawa at Panunupil sa Karapatan ng Manggagawa: Hamon at Paglaban Gerry Lanuza
LITERARY FOLIO
Analekta at iba pang tula E. San Juan, Jr.
5
19
33 57 67 79 89 97
105
EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION UNDER SIEGE The year 2015 will be remembered in Philippine history as the bloodiest year for the Lumad schools in Mindanao, Philippines. In August 2015, a 14-year-old Manobo girl from Talaingod filed rape charges against 3 soldiers. The military confirmed that the suspects were soldiers, but explained that the charges were dropped after they paid P63,000 to the family (http://www.rappler.com/nation/105847-timelineattacks-lumad-mindanao, June 1, 2016). A month later, at least 10 houses and a Lumad school were burned by the Magahat-Bagani paramilitary group in the community in Panocmo-an in Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao de Sur. The group also burned a corn sheller owned by the community in Kabulohan. Both communities are not far from the site where Samarca, Campos, and Sinzo were killed. In response to the growing clamor from deiffrent sectors, the Department of Education Region XI declared that the schools were “not closed but just not reopened.” The military and DepEd announced that the schools would be replaced by the military using “para-teachers” or soldiers who will act as teachers. This kind of terroristic assault against the indigenous schools is best described by Kalumaran Secretary General Dulphing Ogan: “It is a form of ethnocide but it is worse because there are specific characteristics of impunity and killings targeting the Lumad. What is alarming is that it is happening all over Mindanao.” In the face of this horrendous state terrorism, progressive teachers and educational workers stood with the Lumad to condemn the terrorism unleashed by the military. The progressive teachers of University of the Philippines with their Chancellor stood to defend the rights of the Lumad to education and selfdetermination by hosting the camp out of the Lumad from Mindanao. But the problem of indigenous people and their rights to education and self-determination is deeply rooted in the kind of economic policies that define the communities where they stay. Under the neoliberal economic reforms, under the behest of neoliberal globalization and imperialist plunder, indigenous communities are subjected to local and global violence. This violence penetrates the spaces once exclusively controlled by the indigenous communities by the tentacles of global capital through mining concessions, illegal logging, and resource-plundering business ventures. Hence any resistance against state-sponsored terrorism against indigenous communities cannot be successful unless it is situated within the larger frame of people’s resistance, global, local and national, against imperialist plunder of resources of developing countries. In this issue of Pingkian, the authors and their articles address the problems of education in the era of intensifying imperialist attack against education and indigenous peoples. Jose Maria Sison’s article on education and Asia Pacific Cooperation highlights the role of regional imperialist blocs in monopolizing and policing, not only the trade within the Asia Pacific region, but also the exchange and commodification of educational goods.
The article of Jasmin Ado, Bernard Santos, Moises P. Jusoy, Marc Del Christian P. Reyes addresses the problems of teachers’ organizing and unions in celebration of World Teachers’ Day. These two articles emphasize and magnify the role of critical pedagogy in the age of neoliberal reform of higher education. Other articles advance the national democratic critique. The article of Sony San Juan addresses the problem of global violence and how it is entangled with the problem of imperialist intervention and plunder. De Lima’s masterful analysis of cultural imperialism locates the violence of imperialism within the symbolic world of cultural reproduction. The articles of Jasmin Ado and Jerry Imbong highlight the role of philosophy in class struggle. Both the articles of Ado and Imbong follow Althusserian definition of philosophy: class struggle in thought. Finally the article of Edberto Villegas on the political economy of the current clamor to change and amend the Constitutional provides the backdrop for any analysis of educational reforms that the future may hold. As part of Pingkian, the Editors also included section on literary works that reflect the revolutionary spirit of art and literature. The Editors are hoping that these articles. Literary pieces, and the documents included in this issue of Pingkian will be useful tools and references for all educational workers who want to understand better the violence of the world we live today. The Editors!
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY SECTION
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
Ang Neoliberal Na Opensiba Ng Apec At Epekto Nito Sa Edukasyong Pilipino Jose Ma. Sison Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
Ang Neoliberal Na Opensiba Ng Apec At Epekto Nito Sa Edukasyong Pilipino Jose Maria Sison Mga kapanalig at kababayan, Pilipinas ang nagpupunong abala ngayong taon sa Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), hila ang may mga sandaang pulong na ugnay sa APEC –marami sa mga lunsod ng Pilipinas tulad ng Manila, Cebu, Iloilo, Tagaytay at Clark Freeport – at rururok sa taunang Economic Leaders’ Meeting ng APEC na idaraos sa Manila sa Nobyembre. Nagsisimula nang daklutin ang pansin ng midya sa pagtatambol sa APEC sa panahong inuuga ang sambayanang Pilipino sa dagok ng malubhang krisis at panibagong mga opensiba ng global na kapitalismo sa rehimen ng patakarang neoliberal. Sa partikular, nadarama ng kabataang Pilipino ang tindi ng krisis na umaapekto sa pambansang ekonomya at sistema ng edukasyon. Pinasusuray ang masang mag-aaral at mga pamilya nila sa dagok ng pataas na presyo ng mga bilihin at pabulok na kalidad ng edukasyon, gayundin ng malubhang kawalang hanapbuhay na nakaumang sa kanila kapag naghanap ng trabaho. Kaya matalas ang interes nilang arukin kung paano talaga pinalalala ang mga suliraning ito ng itinatatwang mga reporma sa mga patakaran sa ekonomya at edukasyon ng Pilipinas, na tuwirang nakakawing sa mga opensibang neoliberal at APEC. I. APEC bilang instrumento ng opensibang neoliberal laban sa mamamayan ng daigdig
Ipinangangalandakan ng APEC na itinataguyod nito ang kooperasyong ekonomiko sa hanay ng mga bayan ng malawak na rehiyong Asya-Pasipika. Tahanan nga ang 21 myembrong-estado nito ng tatlong bilyong mamamayan na bumubuo ng 60 porsyento ng daigdigang ekonomya, at sa gayon sa luklukan ng napakalaking kolektibong potensyal para sa kaunlarang sosyo-ekonomiko at entre-estadong kooperasyon. Gayunman, ipinapakita ng rekord ng APEC mula sa pagkatatag nito noong 1989 na pangunahing isinusulong ng oryentasyong malaking negosyo, adyendang neoliberal, at mga mayor na direksyong pampatakaran ay ang pagpapasulong pangunahin sa dominanteng mga interes ng mauunlad na bayan sa pangunguna ng United States at Hapon. Kasang-ayon sa pasimunong-US na Bretton Woods Agreement at Washington Consensus, agresibong itinulak ng APEC sa higit sa kalahati ng mundo ang mga susing sangkap ng globalisasyong neoliberal–liberalisasyon ng kalakalan at pamumuhunan, deregulasyon, pribatisasyon at denasyunalisasyon. Sa katunayan, idinaos ng US ang 1st Economic Leaders’ Meeting (ELM) ng APEC noong 1993 para itulak paigpaw ang nabalahong WTO Uruguay Round at tangkaing pirapirasuhin ang pagtutol ng mga bayang dimaunlad. Agad itong sinundan ng tinawag na Bogor Goals na pinagtibay ng 2nd ELM noong 1994 na malinaw na
nakatuon sa pagtatatag ng liberalisasyon sa kalakalan at pamumuhunan sa rehiyon – para sa bayang mauunlad pag-abot sa 2010 at sa bayang ‘di mauunlad sa 2020. Mula noon, nagsilbi na ang APEC bilang plataporma upang ikoordina ang mga interes ng mga bayang maunlad, buuin ang consensus (kapag hindi lubusang malutas ang mga alitan) sa hanay nila laluna sa malayang kalakalan, pamumuhunan at pinansya, at akitin pang lalo ang mga bayang ‘di maunlad sa bitag ng neoliberalismo. Bilang isang orihinal na kasapi, parating ginagamit ng US, ang kanyang impluwensya para apihin at itulak ang ibang mga -bayang kasapi tungo sa pangangayupapa at sa gayo’y mapanatili ang pangkalahatang dominansya. Paimbabaw na nagbubuo raw ang APEC ng consensus na kunwa’y boluntaryo at walang obligasyon sa hanay ng mga kinatawan ng mga gobyerno sa pamamagitan ng mga taunang pulong. Gayunman lingid na kumikilos ang APEC Business Advisory Council at CEO Summit bilang daluyan ng makapangyarihang lobby ng mga korporasyon. Katuwang sila ng iba’t ibang komite ng APEC gaya ng Committee on Trade and Investment, na tauhang malalaking burukrata, teknokrata, at hiráng na mga kawani ng mga korporasyon. Ang gilingang propaganda ng APEC ay tuluy-tuloy na naglalabas ng pananaliksik sa patakaran at detalyadong mga alituntunin at rekomendasyon na kumakatawan sa consensus sa hanay ng naghaharing uri sa pulitika at ekonomya na Asia-Pacific, na tinatatakan na lamang ng basbas ng taunang ELM. Ang tema ng APEC ngayong taon, “Pagbubuo ng Mapanaklaw na mga Ekonomya, Pagbubuo ng Mas Mabuting Daigdig (Building Inclusive Economies, Building a Better World),” ay umuulit lamang sa mapanlinlang na mantrang lampas-2008 na Adyenda sa Reporma ng Mapanaklaw na Paglaki (“Reform Agenda for Inclusive Growth”) ng World Bank, na ginaya din ng Asian Development Bank. Gayunman, sa likod ng gayong kasuyasuyang-tamis mga islogan tulad ng “pagdemokratisa ng bunga ng paglago ng ekonomya (democratizing the fruits of economic growth),” “pagtataguyod ng paglahok ng SME sa mga pamilihang global,” “ pamumuhunan sa tao (investing in human capital),” at “pagbubuo ng matitibay na mga komunidad (building resilient communities),” ang nasa tuktok ng mga bagay sa agenda ng APEC 2015 sa integrasyon ng ekonomya ng rehiyon (REI o regional economic integration) ay patuloy pa ring umiikot sa balangkas na neoliberal. Kabilang sa priyoridad na ganitong mga bagay ang pagsusulong ng mga panukala tungo sa Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP); ang Estratehikong Blueprint para itaguyod ang “Global Value Chains” (Strategic Blueprint for Promoting Global Value Chains) na kumakatawan sa buod ng integrasyong ekonomiko; ang Kasunduan sa Makabagong Kaunlaran, Repormang Ekonomiko at Paglago o Accord on Innovative Development, Economic Reform and Growth na kumakatawan sa malawak na “repormang istruktural,” at “mga pagbabago”; at ang Connectivity Blueprint para sa 2015-2025 na naglalayong tiyakin ang walang-patlang na daloy ng tao, impormasyon, at kalakalan (laluna sa mga serbisyo) sa buong rehiyon sa kapakinabangan ng monopolyong kapitalismo na pinangungunahan ng US. Ipinapanukala ng APEC ang FTAAP, na unang nagkathang-isip noong 2006 at higit na sinaliksik noong 2010, bilang isang komprehensibo at nagtataling kasunduan
sa “susunod na henerasyon” ng mga isyu sa kalakalan at pamumuhunan na susuporta sa WTO at magsusulong sa layunin ng REI. Sa tinawag na Beijing Roadmap ng APEC na binalangkas noong 2014, pormal kuno ang magiging negosasyon sa FTAAP sa labas ng APEC pero susuportahan ng mga proseso ng APEC sa pagbubuo ng consensus. Sa ngayon , dalawang mayor na landas tungong FTAAP ang ipinapanukala: ang pinangungunahan ng US na Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), na nangangailangan ng mataas na antas ng integrasyon sa rehiyon at kinapapalooban ng maraming bayan sa Asya-Pasipiko pero liban sa Tsina; at ang RCEP o Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership na nakabase sa ASEAN at mas maluwag na anyo ng integrasyon at kinabibilangan ng Tsina pero hindi ng US. Nagkakarera ang TPP at RCEP para mapili ng APEC bilang pangunahing padron ng FTAAP. Pero nananatiling posibleng pagtibayin ng APEC ang pinaghalong FTAAP na bahagi’y TPP at bahagi’y RCEP, at sa gayo’y magiging balangkas sa kooperasyon at kompetisyong US-Tsina sa dakong ito ng mundo. May mga pagsisikap para gawing myembro din ng FTAAP ang lahat ng bayan sa APEC, at mga mungkahing palawakin pa ang kasapian ng APEC, upang lalong maging masaklaw ang FTAAP. Sa gayon, mahalagang arena ang APEC kapwa ng patuloy na sabwatan at ng patinding alitan ng dalawang kapangyarihang imperyalista, ang US at ang Tsina, sa kapinsalaan ng mas mahihina at mas maliliit na bayan. Patuloy na tinatamasa ng blokeng pinangungunahan ng US (kabilang ang Hapon, Canada at Australia) ang pamamayagpag sa buong mundo at determinado itong kompletuhin ang usapang TPP at ang US pivot (pagbaling) sa East Asia. Sa kabilang banda, pinalalakas ng Tsina ang sariling posisyon sa pagsisimento ng mas malapit na ugnayan sa pulitika at ekonomya ng Russia, India at ibang mga estado sa South at Central Asia sa loob ng lumalawak na Shanghai Cooperation Organization, at sa global sa pamamagitan ng bagong lunsad na BRICS Development Bank. Sa kabila ng sariling panloob na mga suliranin, patuloy na pinapalawak ng Tsina ang impluwensya nito sa loob at nang lampas sa rehiyon sa pagtatayo ng Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) kasama ang 49 na ibang bayan sa AsiaPacific, Europe, Africa at Latin America. Kapag lubusan na itong naitayo sa huling bahagi ng 2015, maaaring maging karibal o katambal ng AIIB ang IMF bilang bagong kasangkapang imperyalista na magagamit ng Tsina na paandarin ang mga rekurso para sa sariling ambisyong ehemoniko at para idikta ang mga tuntunin ng entrerehiyonal na integrasyon at konektibidad, laluna sa pamamagitan ng engrandeng proyekto nitong Silk Road. Maging alinmang bersyon, TPP na pinangungunahan ng US o kaya RCEP na pabor sa Tsina, ang magdomina sa proseso, at bago pa marating ang pinal na kasunduan sa FTAAP, inilulugar na ng APEC ang mga blokeng pambuo ng integrasyong ekonomiko sa rehiyon sa magkakasunod na taon. Samantalang hindi kuno nagtatali ang mga dokumentong ibinubuga nito, ipinatutupad na ang nilalaman ng mga ito ng mga myembrong-estado at malaking negosyo ayon sa estilong “sumunod-sa-namumuno ”. Sa esensya, ipinupuslit ang TPP sa medyo binagong porma. Ang resulta’y isang ganap na kaayusan na mas lubusang nagliliberalisa sa kalakalan at pamumuhunan, sumisira sa natitirang bakas ng proteksyong pambansa, at nagbubukas sa mga rekursong
tao, kapital at likas ng dimaunlad na mga bayan at mamamayan sa Asya-Pasipiko sa pagsasamantala ng US at ibang dominanteng kapitalistang mga kapangyarihan. Sakay sa islogang “Namumuhunan sa Pagpapaunlad ng Kapital na Tao (Investing in Human Capital Development),” itinutulak ng APEC ang mga sistema ng higit na integradong sistemang edukasyonal at skills-training na nagdidiin sa agham at teknolohiya, pag-enroll sa iba’t ibang bansa, sa papel ng ICT o information and communications technology, at “pinahusay na kooperasyon ng mga tagapagbigay ng edukasyon at mga tagapag-empleyo. Sakay sa islogang “Building Sustainable and Resilient Communities,” ginagamit ng APEC ang umano’y mga adhikaing “pleksibilidad, sustenebilidad at seguridad sa pagkain” para bigyang-katwiran ang mas mahigpit na integrasyon at pag-uugnay ng mga ekonomyang Asia-Pacific. Itinutulak nito ang higit na paghihigpit sa ugnayan ng global na produksyon at suplay na kontrolado ng TNC, ang konektibidad ng imprastuktura na itinutulak ng mga korporasyon, at ibang mga pakanang kooperasyon sa rehiyon. Ginagamit ang seguridad sa pagkain at pag-angkop sa klima upang bigyang-katwiran ang korporadong kontrol sa mga rekursong dagat at kostal sa pamamagitan ng tinaguriang mga inisyatibang “Green Economy” at “Blue Economy”. Sakay sa islogang “Nagtataguyod ng Paglahok ng SME sa mga Pamilihan ng Rehiyon at Daigdig,” nilalayon ng APEC na higit na mabitag ang SME sa REI at FTAAP na mga pakanang imperyalista, gawing sweatshop ang pinakamatagumpay na mga empresa na pagluluwas ang oryentasyon pero dependyente sa angkat na bagay na kontrolado ng mga TNC (bilang mga sangkap ng umano’y global value chain, at isabotahe ang independyenteng pambansang industriyalisasyon). II. Ang neoliberal na opensiba sa edukasyon
Kabilang sa adyenda ng APEC sa ekonomya ang neoliberal na pakanang “repormahin” ang sistema ng edukasyon ng mga myembrong-bansa, nang sa gayo’y mas mahusay na nakapila ang mga ito sa pagsuplay ng pangangailangan sa bihasang paggawa, mga propesyunal, syentipiko at mga pangangailangang ideolohiyal-kultural ng global na sistemang kapitalista at ng mga panginoon nitong imperyalista. Ang dekadang “Edukasyon para sa Lahat (Education for All o EFA)” na inilunsad noong 1990 at inulit sa Dakar Framework of Action sa World Education Forum noong 2000 ay mabilis na naagaw (hijack) ng World Bank (WB) at ibang mga ahensya ng UN. Mula noon ipinapatupad na ng mga bansang maunlad ang repormang neoliberal sa sariling mga paaralan at itinutulak nila ang pagpapatupad nito sa buong mundo. Masyadong lubog ang Dakar Framework sa neoliberalismo at superpisyalidad ng UN kaya pinupuna ito maging ng mga internasyunal na NGO gaya ng Oxfam, Action Aid, at Education International. Sa likod ng patsada ng EFA, limitado ang komitment ng UN sa Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Target 2A na nagsasaad na sa 2015, “makukumpleto ng lahat ng bata saanman, lalaki man o babae, na ang buong kurso ng primaryang pagaaral.” Ang target na ito na ni hindi tumutugon sa kalidad ng edukasyon at hindi 10
sumasaklaw sa segundaryong paaralan ay hindi pa natatamo. Mga 58 milyong mga bata sa edad pamprimaryang paaralan (9%), 63 milyong kabataan naman sa edad pansegundaryong paaralan (17%) ang mga wala sa paaralan. Maaaring bumaba na hanggang 2006 mula 1996 ang mga tantos ng hindi nag-aaral, pero pumatag na ang mga ito mula 2007 pasulong. Sinabi ng naalarmang UNICEF na, sa kasalukuyang mga tantos, kailangan pa ang 200 taon para matamo ang MDG Target 2A. Sa halip na tiyakin ang unibersal na batayang edukasyon, nakatuon ang neoliberal na reporma sa paaralan sa korporatisasyon ng mas mataas na edukasyon, at sa pagbabaling ng mga paaralang primarya at segundaryo sa pagsusuplay ng bihasang paggawa sa pangangailangan ng kapitalismong global. Sinasabi nito na unibersal na karapatan ang edukasyon pero hindi ito nakatuon sa edukasyon bilang serbisyong panlipunan kundi bilang kalakal. Matagal nang isang mekanismong pang-angkop para sa mahihirap na bansa ang komersyalisadong edukasyon, gayunma’y malayong mas pinasahol ng neoliberal na mga repormang pampaaralan ang komersyalisasyon ng edukasyon. Nirebisa na ang mga kurikulum, ang mga paraan ng at materyales sa pagtuturo, at ang mga sistema sa paggrado at pagsubok para lalong bumagay sa mga pangangailangan ng malaking negosyo at ng global na mga kawing sa produksyon. Pinagpapaligsahan ang mga estudyante para sa matataas na grado at marka sa mga pagsusulit, nang sa gayo’y maibenta nila ang sarili sa mas mataas na presyo sa pamilihan ng bihasang paggawa. Pinagpapaligsahan din ang mga paaralan at guro, sa global na mga pamantayang akademiko at ranggo ang nasa isip, para maibenta ang sarili at ang mga serbisyo nila sa mas matataas na presyo. Madalas ipresenta ang globalisasyong akademiko sa nagningning na mga pananalita. Higit daw ang mga oportunidad para sa lokal na mga pamantasan na makikompitensya sa pagraranggong global, tumanggap ng mas maraming estudyanteng internasyunal, magpadala ng mga pinakamagaling na gradweyt sa North America, Europa, Hapon, at ibang lugar, at maki-partner sa mga unibersidad at TNC na sikat sa buong mundo. Gayunma’y ilan lamang sa kanila ang nagtatagumpay. Nananatiling mga diploma mill ang bulto ng mga paaralang maramihang nagluluwal ng bihasang pwersa ng paggawa at ordinaryong propesyunal. Tumungo ang neoliberal na mga reporma sa paaralan sa bawas na gugulin ng gobyerno sa edukasyong publiko at sa dagdag na pribatisasyon. Tumitindi ang operasyon ng mga pamantasang estado, mga kolehiyo at ibang mga paaralang publiko, at maging ng mga pribadong paaralang umano’y “non-profit,” bilang napagkakakitaang mga negosyo, na kadalasa’y sa pakikipagtuwang sa malaking negosyo. Nauuwi ito sa pilipit na mga prayoridad na akademiko, mas matataas na tuition, paglabag sa mga karapatang guro, at pasahol na kawalan ng panlipunang katarungan. Para dagdagan ang sariling kakayahan sa kompetisyon at ganansya, nagtutuon ang mga kolehiyo at unibersidad sa mga programang mas maganansya at tinatapyas iyong itinuturing na marhinal o kaya’y hindi kritikal (tulad ng sa humanities). Ikinukomersyo ang mga lupain nila, gusali, resulta ng mga pananaliksik at ibang mga rekursong kaalaman. Isinisiksik ang mas maraming kurso sa isang taon at 11
bumabaling sa trimester para mas mabilis ang pagpapagradweyt. Sinasagad nila ang mga mag-aaral at guro sa pagtataas ng tuition at padadagdag ng pasaning trabaho, sa pamamagitan ng mas istriktong mga rekisito sa mga ipinagkakaloob (grant) at ipinauutang (loan), at sa paglimita ng sahod at benepisyo ng mga guro at ng mga hindi-nagtuturong kawani. Sa huli, ipinataw mula sa itaas ang lahat ng nabanggit na hakbangin sa pamamagitan ng mga prosesong burukratiko na lingid na isinasagawa ng mga pulitiko at ng WB o ng mga consultant na pinupondohan ng mga korporasyon. Samantala, pinapaliit ang papel ng nagtuturo at di-nagtuturong empleyado, mga magulang at mag-aaral sa konseptwalisasyon, pagpaplano, at pagpapatupad. Binabanatan ang mga protestang kampus laban sa gayong mga reporma sa pamamagitan ng propagandang anti-Kaliwa kung hindi man ng tuwirang pasistang panunupil. Sa Pilipinas, malinaw na halimbawa ang tinatawag na programang Kindergarten hanggang Grade 12 (K-12 program)—sentrong palamuti sa inisyatiba ng rehimeng Aquino—ng isang neoliberal na reporma sa paaralan na pumalpak. Sa ilalim ng Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (R.A. 10533), papalitan ang lumang 10-gradong saligang sistema ng edukasyon (anim sa elementarya at apat sa mataas na paaralan) ng sistemang 12-grado (may dagdag na dalawang taon sa abanteng mataas na paaralan) bukod sa rekisitong kindergarten. Sa likod ng pangakit na terminong “humahabol (catching up)” sa mga pamantayang global, layunin ng programang K-12 ni Aquino na mapahanay ang sistemang edukasyon ng Pilipinas sa kapitalistang sistemang global at mas mahusay na makipagkompetisyon sa ibang dimauunlad na bansa sa pagluluwal ng malaking reserbang suplay ng bihasang paggawa para sa pamilihan ng mundo (world market) at particular para sa rehiyong Asya-Pasipiko nang sa gayo’y mapanatiling mababa ang sweldo at sahod. Sumasakay ang programa sa sumusunod na mga argumentong magkakaugnay: Una, kailangang “paluwagin (decong est)” ang kasalukuyang sistema dahil “mabigat na matutuhan (hard-pressed to learn)” ng mga mag-aaral sa 10 taon ang natututuhan ng mga estudyante sa ibang mga bansa sa 12 taon. Ikalawa, hindi sapat na naihahanda ng matataas na paaralan ngayon ang mga mag-aaral para sa kolehiyo. Ikatlo, masyadong maagang magtapos ang mga mag-aaral ngayon sa edad na 16 sa mataas na paaralan, kaya mabibigyan sila ng dagdag na dalawang taon ng higit na oportunidad para magkatrabaho dahil “nasa legal na edad na sila at may sapat na kabihasaan.” At ikapat, bahagi ang K-12 ng mga pamantayang global, na kailangan para mag-aplay sa trabaho o pag-aaral na postgraduate sa ibayong dagat. Inaamin ng ikalimang argumento na nakahanay ang sistema ng edukasyon ng Pilipinas sa pinakamatagal sa Southeast Asia at istorikong isa sa pinakamahusay sa buong mundo, pero nahuhuli na sa mga hinihingi ng “mga ekonomyang batay-kaalaman (knowledge-based economies)” ng ika-21 siglo. Bagsak ang mga argumentong ito kasi kalakhang batay sa maling mga saligan at huwad na mga pangako ng globalisasyong neoliberal, at sa simplistikong ideya na dapat sumali na ang mga Pilipino sa global na K-12 dahil lahat ng iba’y nakasakay na rito. Binabalewala ang ibang mga pag-aaral na nagpapakitang walang malinaw na ugnayan sa pagitan ng kantidad ng oras at kalidad ng proseso para matuto. 12
Binabalewala ang katunayang maraming bansa ang deka-dekada nang naka-K12 pero nananatiling napakaatrasado at mas masahol pa sa Pilipinas kaugnay ng mga sukatan sa edukasyon. Ni hindi maipaliwanag kung bakit, sa kabila ng hindi pagdaan sa K-12, kabilang ang mga Pilipino sa pinakamaraming may mas mahusay na edukasyon at handang tumanggap ng mas mababang bayad at pinakananais na overseas workers. Sa totoo, isa ang K-12 ni Aquino sa maraming reporma sa edukasyon na inuobliga ng ASEAN Integration, ayon sa recomendasyon ng SEAMEO INNOTECH (na nagpapasimuno at nagpapalaganap ng mga programa sa edukasyon na bago at may oryentasyon sa teknolohiya) at ng ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) Projects, para hikayatin ang pangingibang bansa ng mga manggagawa pero kasabay na nagtatakda ng mga pamantayan sa edukasyon at propesyon para sa tawidhangganan (cross-border) na pagtatrabaho sa loob ng rehiyong Southeast Asia. Napakaespisipikong itinutulak ang K-12 ni Aquino ng Washington Accord and Europe’s Bologna Process sa pangunguna ng US, sa layuning kilalanin o bigyan ng akreditasyon tanging ang mga propesyunal (o inhinyero sa kaso ng Washington Accord) na dumaan na sa 12 taong batayang edukasyon. Mas pangkalahatang itinutulak ito ng EFA ng WB at ng Millennium Development Goals (MDG) ng UN. Sa sistemang K-12, nakatuon sa mataas na paaralan (lalo na sa huling dalawang taon) ang mga kabihasaang espesyalisado at teknikal na hanap ng global na pamilihang paggawa. Halimbawa sa umano’y Technology and Livelihood Education (TLE) para sa Grades 7-10, at Tracks/Specialization para sa Grades 11-12, kasama sa modyul ang pag-aaral ng gawaing bahay, pagtutubero, welding, pananahi, caregiving, pagkarpentero, pag-aalaga ng kagandahan at kuko, paggawa ng tinapay, atbp. Sa halip na dumaan sa komprehensibong batayang edukasyon para ihanda ang sarili na maging produktibong myembro ng lipunang Pilipino, inaasahan ngayon ang mayorya ng kabataang Pilipino na maghandang maging kasambahay, caregiver, tagalinis, waiter, orderly sa hotel, hairstylist, tubero, welder, karpentero at panadero sa buong mundo. Sa kabilang banda, inaalisan ng diin ng K-12 at ibang neoliberal na mga reporma sa paaralan ang patriyotikong edukasyon, kamulatan at kultura. Sa mga pamantasan, tinapyas na ang mga kurso o paksa na ukol sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, lenggwahe at panitikang Pilipino, pamahalaan at konstitusyong Pilipino. Sa mataas na paaralan, babawasan na rin ang oras na nakatuon sa Araling Panlipunan, at babaguhin ang istruktura ng kurikulum para humalaw ng mga tema mula sa US National Council for Social Studies. Ang balintuna’y palulubhain ng K-12 gamot ni Aquino ang karamdaman dahil sa maling oyentasyon, mahinang plano at kakulangan sa pondo, mga palatandaan na magiging burara ang implementasyon, at magkakaroon ng maraming negatibong epekto na pwede sanang maiwasan. Una, maraming taon nang nananatiling nasa antas na malayong mababa sa pamantayang takda ng UNESCO (anim na porsyento, 6%, man lamang ng GDP) at ng WB (20% ng pambansang badyet) ang mga alokasyong badyet ng gobyernong Pilipino para sa edukasyong publiko. Kahit walang K-12, hinaharap na ng mga 13
paaralang publiko ang napakalubhang kawalan ng mga pasilidad, libro, at mga guro. Tinatayang aabot ang mga rekisito ng K-12 sa badyet para sa 2014-2019 sa USD 4,410 milyon, at kahit ngayon tanaw na ng gobyerno ang depisit at may negosasyon ito sa mga bangkong gaya ng ADB para sa USD 100 milyon na pampuno sa kakulangan. Kaya, sa kabalintunaan ay pasasamain pa ng K-12 ang mga limitasyon at kakapusan ng rekurso sa badyet para sa mga paaralang publiko, na napakalaki ang epekto sa kalidad ng edukasyon at sa tantos ng paglahok, bukod sa higit pang ilulubog nito sa utang ang bansa. Ikalawa, dahil takdang saligang kakapusan sa badyet anu’t anuma’y kakailanganing balikatin ng mga mag-aaral at mga pamilya nila ang dagdag na pasaning K-12. Ngayong 2015-2016, 1.4 milyong mga mag-aaral sa ikapat na taon sa mataas na paaralang publiko at tapos na sana sa lumang sistema ang pipiliting pumili kung dadaan sila sa dagdag na dalawa pang taon (Gradong 11-12). Kung pipiliing tanggapin ang dalawang taon pa, kakailanganin ng bawat estudyante ang mga PHP 30,000 (USD 660) na lubhang makakabigat sa badyet ng magulang. Alternatibo na hindi na magkolehiyo at maghanap sa halip ng trabaho bilang madisbentaheng mga dropout sa mataas na paaralan – ang eksaktong kalagayang iniiwasan sana ng K-12. Ikatlo, patitindihin ng K-12 ang pribatisasyon ng sistema ng edukasyon. Sa halos 1.95 milyong mag-aaral sa mga publiko at pribadong paaralan na inaasahang magtapos ng ikapat na antas (Gradong 10) ngayong taon, mga kalahati lamang ang tatanggapin ng matataas na paaralang publiko na may Grades 11-12. Walang pagpipilian ang kalahati pa kundi lumipat sa mga eskwelahang pribado o mga unibersidad at kolehiyo ng estado na nag-aalok ng Grade 11 (karaniwang sa mas mataas na tuition kahit ikumpara sa unang taon sa kolehiyo), o sumama sa lumulobong hanay ng mga kabataang hindi nag-aaral. Iniaalok ng rehimeng Aquino ang dalawang madaliang lunas na magpapabilis lamang sa pribatisasyon at hihikayat sa korupsyon: (1) ang “SHS voucher system” na sa bataya’y parsyal na subsidyo sa senior na mga mag-aaral sa mataas na paaralan para bayaran ang pag-enroll sa paaralang pribado na kalahok sa sistemang voucher; at (2) ang PPP for School Infrastructure Project (SIP) na binabayaran ng gobyerno ang mga pribadong kontraktor para gumawa ng dagdag na silid-aralan ayon sa programang itayo-ipaupa (build-lease). Nasa ilalim ng Education Voucher System at Education Service Contracting, na kapwa halatang pakana sa pribatisasyon ayon sa Government Assistance Program to Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE) na suportado ng World Bank. Ang pamamahala ng GASTPE ay matagal nang ikinontrata ng Departamento sa Edukasyon sa Private Education Assistance Committee (PEAC) ng Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE). Ang alokasyon ng badyet ng GASTPE, na kakatiting noong dekadang 1990 ay umakyat sa Php 20 bilyon sa siyam na taong itinagal ng rehimeng Arroyo, lumobo sa Php 34 bilyon sa unang limang taon ng masamang pamamahalang Aquino, at lolobo pang lalo sa Php 20 bilyon sa 2016 lamang. Ang gastos na tulong-gobyerno sa pribadong edukasyon ay lumaki nang katakut-takot at napakadaling abusuhin kaya maging ang Komisyon sa Patutuos ng Kwenta, na di man awtorisadong magtuos ng kwenta ng GASTPE, ay tumututol sa buong pribatisadong kaparaanan sa PEAC-FAPE. 14
Intensyon man o hindi, nakaakmang bawasan nang malaki ng K-12 ni Aquino ang mga posisyon sa pagtuturo sa kolehiyo dala ng inaasahang matinding pagbagsak ng enrollment sa unang taon sa kolehiyo sa susunod na dalawang taon. Tinatayang 78,000 mga guro sa kolehiyo at empleyado ang mawawalan ng trabaho o ibababa sa pagiging guro sa mataas na paaralan na mas mababa ang sweldo — kung mailulugar sila sa mga trabahong antas-SHS. Ipinapakita ng ganitong pag-aalis lamang ang rurok ng ng kawalang kakayahan sa pagpaplano at di pagpansin sa karapatang paggawa. Kung sumahin, inihahantad ng K-12 ni Aquino ang paglubha ng krisis sa edukasyon sa Pilipinas at ang pagwawalang-bahala ng gobyerno sa karapatan ng mamamayan sa edukasyon sa harap ng mga opensibang neoliberal. Ang pagsunod sa mga diktang pataw ng US sa edukasyon ay hindi ikalulutas ng seryosong suliranin ng Pilipinas sa kawalang trabaho at sa pagdaragdag ng seguridad sa trabaho ng mga manggagawang Pilipino, na nakaugat sa mas pundamental na mga suliranin ng pagkaatrasado tulad ng kawalan ng tunay na industriyalisasyon at reporma sa lupa. Kung gagamitin mang sukatan ang reputasyon (o track record) ng gobyerno kaugnay ng edukasyong publiko, magiging bagong larangan lamang ang K-12 ni Aquino para sa pribatisasyon at mga PPP, pag-utang sa dayuhan at korupsyon, samantalang magpapatuloy ang pagharap ng mga tapos sa K-12 na papasok sa pwersang paggawa ang gayon pa ring mga suliranin–matinding kawalan ng trabaho, mababang sahod, at panganib sa pangingibang bansa para magtrabaho. Sa teorya, pwedeng magbunsod ang isang programang K-12, na may angkop na oryentasyon, plano at pamamahala, ng tunay na mga repormang totoong pakikinabangan ng mamamayan at kabataang Pilipino sa larangan ng edukasyon. Magagawa ng isang totoong patriyotiko, makamasa at syentipikong sistema ng edukasyon na magsanay ng milyung-milyong kabataan, tumulong na bigyang kapangyarihan ang mamamayan at itayo ang bansa nila sa pamamagitan ng pinataas na kamulatang panlipunan, kaalamang syentipiko at mga kabihasaang teknikal — habang nag-aambag din sa pangkalahatang pagsulong ng kaalaman at pag-unlad ng tao sa pandaigdigang saklaw. Tiyak na mabibigo ang K-12 ng pangkating Aquino dahil sa bulag na pagsunod nila sa mga among neoliberal, at sariling maling mga priyoridad at kawalang kakayahan. III. Mga Panawagan sa Pagkilos
Ang International League of Peoples’ Struggle ay nananawagan sa mamamayan ng lahat ng bansa laluna sa rehiyong Asya-Pasipiko na ilantad at labanan ang mga opensibang neoliberal sa pangungunang US na lingid na nakaabang sa loob at paligid ng APEC. Partikular tayong nananawagan sa mamamayang Pilipino na mag-organisa at kumilos sa mga pulong pag-aaral at aksyong protesta para tumulong sa lubusang paglalantad ng mga susing pulong ng APEC sa Manila at ibang mga lungsod sa Pilipinas, at pati ng maaasahang kalalabasan ng mga ito. Sadyang nananawagan tayo sa kabataang Pilipino na ipagpatuloy na ilantad at labanan ang iba’t ibang pakanang “repormang” neoliberal sa edukasyon, 15
at ipaglaban ang sistema ng edukasyon na tunay na makabayan, makamasa, at syentipiko batay sa pambansang industriyalisasyon, tunay na repormang agraryo, at pamamahalang batay sa mga karapatang demokratiko. Kabilang sa mga atas ng kilusang kabataan-estudyante sa Pilipinas ang magsilbing kilusang propaganda para sa pambansang kasarinlan at demokrasya, malalim na makisalamuha sa hanay ng masang manggagawa at magsasaka, at abutin ang mga kababayan nila na nag-aaral at nagtatrabaho sa ibayong dagat, at magpahayag din ng pakikiisa sa pamamagitan ng pagpapatibay ng ugnayan sa mga katapat nila sa anti-imperyalistang pandaigdigang kilusang kabataan. Panahon nang harapin ng mga mamamayan ng Asya-Pasipiko ang mga isyung nakapaligid sa APEC, iugnay ang mga ito sa global na krisis ng kapitalismo, pareho sa mga sentro ng imperyalismo at sa mga neokolonya, at isulong nang may panibagong lakas ang pakikibaka para sa pambansang kasarinlan, demokrasya, at tunay sa pag-unlad ng lipunan at ekonomya batay sa katarungan. May tiwala tayo na ang mga mamamayan sa Asya-Pasipiko ipaglalaban nila ang pambansang soberanya, demokrasya, industriyal na pag-unlad at kulturang makabayan, siyentipiko at makamasa. Tiyak na tatahakin nila ang landas ng pakikibaka para makaalpas sila sa kasalukuyang global na krisis at sa ehemonya (gahum) ng mga imperyalista, para makamit ang pambansa at sosyal na kalayaan at para magtayo ng wastong panrehiyong kooperasyon. Maraming salamat.
16
17
18
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
The Parallax View of Alienation and Anomie through the Monetization of Education: Interview on Teacher’s Day using Young Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, George Simmel Jasmin Ado, Bernard Santos, Moises P. Jusoy & Marc Del Christian P. Reyes Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
19
20
The Parallax View of Alienation and Anomie through the Monetization of Education: Interview on Teacher’s Day using Young Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, George Simmel Jasmin Ado, Bernard Santos, Moises P. Jusoy & Marc Del Christian P. Reyes THE MISEDUCATION Under a rainy mid-afternoon at Mendiola in the midst of a meaningful protest where I have interviewed Jolly Dugot, a fresh graduate of Secondary Education Major in Filipino from Philippine Normal University this year who is currently working fulltime at (Alliance of Concerned Teachers) ACT Party list and as a full-time person dedicated to the partylist, he was still able to discuss the current problems about Education today since he is constantly connected with his co-educators. As a fresh graduate, he is yet to teach at High Schools and while preparing himself to get there, he is aware of the personal troubles and national issues about Education. He said that he is currently working full-time for ACT Party list so he can help to raise the call for an across-the-board teacher’s salary increase and other national issues about education that needs to be address. He said that many teachers today may be celebrating “World Teacher’s Day” but to them, it’s just a mere façade since there still lots of issues on education today that we still have to face. He said that the current provided benefits do not do any good at all for the teachers and the only way for them to make their ends meet most of the time is to get loans from government sectors (e.g. GSIS) or peddle other goods than their teachings to the students who are badly rationed to their teachers. Because of this lack of Quality and Quantity of Education, lots of students go home to their homes learning nothing which was worsened when K+12 system that was proposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund which was brought by the state to ensure that these students will have additional two years of studying for vocational units and taking off Philippine History to numb their young consciousness and Filipino to numb their very own mother tongue to send out of the country and serve the well-developed countries even without considering the horrible situation of the Philippine System of Education. While the system leaves the economic needs of the teachers which was proven during Pres. B.S Aquino’s stay for 5 years in his seat while tuition fees, oil and food are increasing which takes a heavier toll for all teachers to face their everyday lives. Even if there were provided Incentives/Bonuses, these does not appeal to the actual needs of the teachers what they need is an actual and liveablesalary increase where 21
they would be able to propagate a national, scientific and mass-oriented education to ward of the fascist education that we are currently on now. Majority of the teachers in the Philippines are property-less workers and Marx said that property-less workers are the ones who first-hand experiences impoverishment, estrangement and alienation to the world. And in some cases, the teacher is afraid of the products that he is creating because the products that he createsare capable of being antagonistic to himself as a teacher. Most of the time, the teacher does not feel the fruits of his own labour, and often feels estranged the more he teaches when they are supposed to enable themselves in externalizing what is good from their insides through the children that they teach. In the time of capitalism, teachers no longer teach as a natural spring of spontaneous act of creativity but it is forced to be performed for the capitalists and these situations both apply in public and private schools. Why is it so? Borrowing from the words of Marx “Modern Work is Alienated”, teachers today are being dehumanized by them being recognized as specialized expendables for they are expected to create lesson plans that will make sure that all of the things that student needs to know in a lesson can fit within 30-45 minutes, trying to generate instructional materials from their own pockets aside from feeding themselves and their own children as they try to fit everything that they could ever fit with their appalling wages could make you ask yourself why is life getting harder when you are already working as much as you can as you teach more than 6 hours a day even if you try to sell Avon, longganisa and other things to your students and competing with your other co-teachers are really alienating and not competing and overworking might cost them to lose their jobs, their punch cards now have become their gods. Marx said that “work” should be the window for the workers to see themselves in the objects that they are creating where in the time of capitalism, teachers often find a hard time seeing themselves in their students and most of the time tries to guarantee their existence and dependence with their employers.In the time of capitalism, the teacher exists as a teacher only when he exists for himself as a capital; and he exists as a capital only when some capital exists for him. The existence of capital is his existence, his life; as it determines the tenor of his life in a manner indifferent to him. The young Karl Marx has known and has said that we all fear of being abandoned and for that, we should always have a place in the world’s heart, indeed a teacher’s heart knows how to love his or her students but should we let Capitalism take and destroy this love? Aside from their roles as teachers, they sometimes replace janitors in cleaning the classrooms together with their students, these teachers also in sometimes get killed while they try to secure the votes of the people during elections as ballot watchers. They have sacrificed so much for this country as heroes are most of the time unrecognized by the state, often neglected with their actual needs yet these teachers still try to pursue what is great for their students, often given thankless – to teach is to love. 22
In Private Schools, the teachers get paid little while the School owners get richer and as for public schools, the state saves funds from starving our Education sector and puts these saved funds on another government sector or elsewhere. According to Marx, the Capitalists and the State will shrink the worker’s wage as much as they can for wider profit margins. To Marx, profit is simply theft that stealing the talent and the hard work of the workforce is nothing but a fancy term for exploitation. With this case, organized rallies and protests are often observed in societies where Capitalism is prevailing because according to Marx “Capitalism is very unstable” that it is constructed under a series of crises which will result a hundred or maybe a thousand more marches and rallies of many different sectors which in turn can also be bad for capitalists as well since they have forgotten how to put love in the middle of their hearts and have forced themselves to put their very own economic reasons in the middle of it in the supposed place of love because for them, everything and everyone is treated in terms of utility and price to secure their own survival, making them susceptible to insecurity, unhealthy competition, political complacency which in the long run betray them as capitalists. The latter may have tried to ameliorate the situation, but mostly for the sake of impression that capitalism has a “conscience” that is, far from its really-existing paradox. As capitalists accumulate wealth, their needs become more refined. Workers just need to adjust their needs downward in misery and thrift by all means. Selfdenial becomes a cardinal virtue. In the age of capitalism, we may all have forgotten how to truly love and of course, the sole solution for all these suffering and the loss of love that we are experiencing now, and to recover our losses, is a social revolution. THE MONETIZED EDUCATION During the celebration of world teachers’ day across the country, some teachers took this as an opportunity to mobilize and ask for the government a little change about the current status of the public school teachers. We joined the mobilization that was happened from Morayta in Manila going to Mendiola. (Personally that was my first experience to join such mob.) As a graduate of BS in Secondary Education, and as a former teacher also, I know what those teachers feel. But while doing some of our interviews, I was a little bit shocked on how the teachers react in such many situations in their current profession. I interviewed an elementary teacher from Malate, Manila. She is on his 29th year in service while her husband was on his 31st year. I asked her what are the problems encountered of the public school teachers. The number one problem is the salary increase that they have been waiting for over a couple of years ago. She discussed that even though she earns 20k+ per month, it is not enough to send their kids to school especially now that 3 of his kids are now in college. And most of the time they received their salary too late (delayed). It forces them to borrow or lend money from everyone. Because of this, they cannot save money because they need to pay their debt plus the interest. I ask her why she did not shift into another career, 23
wherein she can earn more money. She simply told us that, “I love teaching. I have the passion to continue to teach even if I earned small amount. I stayed as a teacher because of happiness.” On those things that she told us, she is not fighting only to gain for herself, but she’s doing it for all the teachers in our country. She wants to get her salary higher not to become rich, but to make it exact for their family. In the book of George Simmel the Philosphy of Money he discussed how money changes the lives of the people. We all know that money is only a tool, and yet it is always viewed as an end result of whatever we do. I do agree to Simmel that, money can determine the value of everything. We know that being a public school teacher is not a joke. Teachers are not treated as well as the doctors, engineers who earn more than a teacher. Doctors and other professions are more respected than the teachers because they earn more money. While the teachers received only low respect from the society. Teaching may be the noblest profession because it debunks the thinking of “I need to earn more money”. These teachers that we encountered in Mendiola are fighting for their salary increase but if you listen to them you will just understand. They are not being monetized. They are just fighting for the money that will keep them alive for what they needs not for what they want. THE ANOMIE OF ALIENATION The next essay focuses on the concept of anomie of Durkheim particularly the function of our educational system. As explained above, the teacher as alienated worker is to be considered as the product of anomic system where their experience of alienation connoting the system of education itself that it was experiencing the anomie or abnormality that results the breakdown of solidarity in Durkhemian sense. As Marx points out in his Philosophic Manuscript 1844, the idea of alienation denoting the problem of alienated labor that involves both surrender of control over work and its product, the workers disengagement from work and fellow worker, the powerlessness, and self-estrangement of the human person. The concept of Marx alienation focus on the subjective experience of the worker due to objective abnormality or rather the pain of contradictionwhich more particular in his relation to labor-work, fellow workers, and in his own self. On the other hand, the Durkhemianconcepts of anomie (normlessness) focus more on the state of society or to the partial system of the whole not only to the person or subjective experience but more in objective abnormality yet we cannot deny that the implications for person’s state of mind are surely present in his works. Furthermore, the second essay tries to connect the Marxist point of view of alienation together with the point of view of Durkheim regarding anomie as their common ground of dialectical contradiction both in subjective and objective experience of the worker-teacher and our lens to interpret our empirical interview regarding the common subjective and objective struggle of the teachers and the situation of our educational system. 24
During our protest at mendiola together with these teachers in private and public schools shouting for reparation of dilapidated educational system in our country they wereostensibly joining the mob that shows their position as progressive teachers and could be considered as alienated workers in the dilapidated system of education. They were marching to mendiola to address the issuesof wage-labourto increase for the worker especially the public teachers, the lack of total benefits especially in health, the issue of contractualization of work in public sector, the misplace of budget in education (budget cut), the lack of means for education like schools, books, chairs, etc… , andthe lack of Quality and Quantity of Education where lots of students go home to their homes learning nothing which was worsened when K+12 system that was proposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These are the issues that rose and the words that came out from the mouth of the protesting teachers. These issues that addressed by the teachers is empirically a phenomenon of alienation in behalf of their subjective experience as teacher. First, their alienation as subjected to drudge and menial work where they taught more than hundreds of students everyday due to congestion of volume of students and perhaps it effects them psychologically and physically especially to their health (some of the teachers have cancer due to exhaustive use of their body in teaching) and implicitly most of the teachers in public school turn into zombies and teacher machines because of the huge number of students; second, their alienation from government benefits as their life support like lack of health support, very low salary andvery poor regarding retirement benefits; third, their alienation from other teachers (competition of position for the upgrade of their salary); fourth, the absence or the displacement of educational budget as public fund as one of the major effects to all the teachers (also to the students) because they are oblige to buy materials for teaching and learning using their low salary; fifth, their alienation from their family and love life because of the level of demand and focus in teaching (no doubt that 40% of teachers are bachelors and do not have the time to search for their lifetime partner); and lastly,the type of educational system (K-12 program) the mode of production of education where the quality of education is declining and the quantity of students rapidly increase due to the scarcity of schools and teachers. So what is the effect of this kind of alienation to our fellow teachers? To some extent if all the teachers suffers this type of system in education. The worst victim of this alienation is not only the position of the teachers but the situation of the students generally.No fund for schools, books, and other necessities/means for education. All of them are in the state of alienation where their experiences both subjective and objective are inter-connected andlots of students go home to their homes learning nothing andthe worst is when K+12 systems applied the government has no budget for education. They want to push the implementation to cope with the neoliberal type of educationyet being not prepared to compete with the globalization. Furthermore, to paraphrase Durkheim, the K-12 mode of education, of globalized modelof education promotes the so-called organic solidarity type of Education; organic solidarity type means a modern society living in the structure of division of labor. Therefore, the K-12 education is a framework to 25
sharpen the division of labor within the educational systemtowards organic society of globalization. The educational system as part of social structure has a vital factors in our society to produce and reproduce good and critical students. This is the reason why the government has the responsibility to include education in public budget in order to support the life of the teacher and sustain the means for education that necessarily use in (re)production of students for the benefit of our social structures. It is was already registered in the collective consciousness of everybody, the function of education in norms (law), the values of moral education, and the crucial role of academic circle in society that shape and mould the mind of young students. However, the role of education in our country is in the state of emergency or crisis and the Durkhemian concept of anomie is present in our educational system known as the anomie of alienation, where teachers and students experienced of being not part of the norm or system of ruling government/structures under the neo-liberal policy of globalized mode of education and the system of education itself become unlawful and does not correspond to the authentic function of structure to serve the students and teachers. Our education is paralyze regarding in budget and it was effected on the systemic adjustment of our government regarding the onslaught of globalization. This onslaught also promotes commercialization within our educational system. The college and state universities does not serve the education for students but penetrate by bureaucratic system of commercialization where the students does not treat as student but a mere customers like the costumers of SM Malls. To the extent that it is the direct manifestation of globalization and the mirror of neo-liberal policy of education through privatization of education and the means for education like schools, school property, etc... The onslaught of privatization in every public sector especially the sector of education as sub-system of social structure was anomized (state of anomie) and the circle of education was change into perverted form of norm (lessness) due to business and commercialization that compromises the school in the name of profits. It elucidates the thread of globalization, the hidden hand of neoliberal policy of commercialization of education that apropos to the logic of existing yet dilapidated Capitalism. The emergence of neo-liberal policy does not correspond to the harmonious structure of society (in Durkhemian perspective). The penetration of Capitalism towards education bureaucratized the system of education like the case of UP and the prevailing issue of Budget Cut in education. Thus, what is the dialectical perspective of alienation and anomie regarding the issue of our educational system as one of the affected in monetization sub-structure in our society? The concept of alienation of Marx,workers disengagement from work and fellow worker, the powerlessness, self-estrangement of the human person, and the alienation of worker from his product, is the intrinsic product of commercialized education of market economy, the expected development of organic solidarity of Durkheim and through the highest development of modern organic solidarity has reach its own opposite, the anomie of educational system under the flag of monetized education of neo-liberal policy. Hence, the appearance of subjective suffering of teachers and students dialectically connected to the objective suffering of whole 26
system of education. The anomie of commercialized education was internalized by the teachers and students and unexpectedly invested the experience of alienation. If our education is in the state of anomie commercialization and privatization there’s no doubt that the experience of alienation by the teachers and students is correlated to the system of anomie in social structure. Thus, anomie is alienation and alienation is anomie through profit monetization of education! EDUCATION AS A PASSION CALLED LOVE After hearing the stories of the teachers we interviewed in Mendiola, I finally understood why they were there, why were they protesting, why did they spend their day (Teacher’s day) in the streets instead of celebrating it in their schools or taking the chance to get some rest. Our teachers, our heroes, the ones who are in charge of forming and educating the future generation, the future of our country, are facing various problems and issues on their own. Coming from the teachers themselves, their problem on low salary: “kulang na kulang ang aming sahod para sa pangangailangan ng pamilya ko. Pero ok lang, para sa mga bata.”; lack of benefits: “mababa na nga sahod kulang pa sa benepisyo”; the issue of contractualization: “madaming hindi permanente sa mga kasama naming kaya walang natatanggap na bonus at ibang benepisyo”; and the lack of support from the government; “ultimo mga gamit sa skwelahan kaming mga teachers ang nagpprovide, walang budget ang school para dito, paano kami magtuturo, kawawa ang mga bata, kaya kami na rin ang bumibili.” These are just some of the things that pushed our teachers to go out in the streets and asked for a little change that the government might or can do. Because of these issues, (especially the issue on budget cut) the quality of education in our schools is being sacrificed. Adding to this, K+12 system is being introduced even if the teachers themselves are not convinced that we are ready to have such system. Teachers, are given more load and work than they can handle and they are not being properly compensated for these. Dehumanization is experience by our teachers because of heavy work. They experience impoverishment, estrangement and alienation not just in work but also with their families and neighbors. With all these sacrifices, these abuses that they are experiencing, still, they don’t receive proper compensation. We can see here how Capitalism, being the orientation of our State, will try to minimize the worker’s wage as much as they can for wider profit margins, not considering what sacrifices their workers did and are continually doing for them. Salaries, minimal benefits small amount of bonuses are just used to mask this exploitation. Today, education becomes a commodity rather that a right. We see education as the key in solving the issue on poverty but ironically, if you are poor you won’t be able to gain proper education where in fact, as we have said, the only way out of the poor condition you are in is through education. Does this mean poor people have no choice and have no way out of the poverty they are experiencing? I’m afraid the answer to this question is YES. If the government will not act upon the issues 27
on education, if they will continue to ignore the voices of the masses that calls for reforms; if we, the citizens who shares the same problem with our fellow teachers and those deprived of education, won’t do any action, the answer will always be YES. Education, something that is supposed to be done with love is now being monetized in this era of Capitalism. In this time were money or profit weighs more than every individual’s right; wherein the rational will of the capitalists takes over the natural will of most people; wherein alienation and dehumanization is permitted all for moneys sake, we should do something, we must say something. We should not let our sense of Community, our sense for service and our passion on the things that we do be destroyed by Capitalism. Indeed, now I understand why Teachers went out there in the streets of Mendiola, it was all because of love, a passion called love. Their love for their teaching, their love for their students, and their love for education led them there. As Frantz Fanon said: “When we revolt it’s not for a particular culture. We revolt simply because, for many reasons, we can no longer breathe”. I salute all the brave teachers that we met in Mendiola who voiced their hearts out, challenging the government to do something. Your students and our country are blessed to have educators like you. May you continue to serve with love even in this time of capitalism and neo-liberal era that we have. May we, someday, in solidarity with all the voices that were left unheard, achieve the desires and ideals that we long for. “ In omnibus amare et sevire”, in everything love and service for the people.
28
29
30
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC SCHOLARSHIP
31
32
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
Nation/State, Nationalism and Global Violence E. San Juan, Jr. Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
33
34
Nation/State, Nationalism and Global Violence E. San Juan, Jr. After the excesses of fascism in World War II and the inter-ethnic conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and the former Yugoslavia, it became axiomatic for postmodernist thinkers to condemn the nation and its corollary terms, “nationalism” and “nationstate,” as the classic evils of modern industrial society. The nation-state, its reality if not its concept, has become a kind of malignant paradox if not a sinister conundrum. It is often linked to violence and the terror of “ethnic cleansing.” Despite this the United Nations and the interstate system of nation-states still function as seemingly viable institutions of everyday life. After September 11, 2001, the U.S. nation-state is evolving into a besieged “homeland,” hence the zealous enforcement of “national security” measures. How do we explain these seemingly paradoxical trends?
Let us review the inventory of charges made against the nation-state and its cognate concepts. Typically described in normative terms as a vital necessity of modern life, the nation-state emerged after the breakup of the medieval Christian empire. It has employed violence to accomplish questionable ends—colonial annexation of territories, conquest of markets, systematic extermination of natives. Its disciplinary apparatuses for war and pacification are indicted for committing unprecedented barbarism. Examples of disasters are the extermination of indigenous peoples in colonized territories by “civilizing” nations, the Nazi genocide of Jews and inferiorized populations, and most recently “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia, Ruwanda, Sri Lanka, and so on. Pursuing a line of thought elaborated by Elie Kedourie, Partha Chatterjee, and others, Alfred Cobban (1994) asserted a widely shared view that the theory of nationalism has proved to be one of the most potent agencies of destruction in the modern world. In certain cases, nationalism mobilized by states competing against other states has become synonymous with totalitarianism and fascism. Charles Tilly (1975), Michael Howard (1991), and Anthony Smith (1979) all concur in the opinion that war and the military machine are principal determinants in the shaping of nation states. In The Nation-State and Violence, Anthony Giddens defines nationalism as “the cultural sensibility of sovereignty” (note the fusion of culture and politics) that unleashes administrative power within a clearly demarcated territory, “the bounded nation-state” (1985: 219). Although it is allegedly becoming obsolete under the pressure of globalization (for qualifications, see Sassen [1998] ), the nation-state is considered by “legal modernists” (Berman 1995) as the prime source of violence against citizens and entire peoples. 35
Postmodernist critiques of the nation (often sutured with the colonialist/ imperialist state) locate the evil in its ideological nature. This primarily concerns the nation as the source of identity for modern individuals via citizenship or national belonging (Taylor 1999), converting natal filiation (kinship) into political affiliation. Identity implies definition by negation, inclusion based on exclusion underwritten by a positivist logic of representation (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991). But these critiques seem to forget that the nation is chiefly a creation of the modern capitalist state, that is, a historical artifice or invention. As Giovanni Arrighi observes, the Settlement of Westphalia which ended the Thirty-Year War marked the “reorganization of political space in the interest of capital accumulation” and signaled “the birth, not just of the modern inter-state system but also of capitalism as a world-system” (1993: 162). Under this imperialist world system, Nikolai Bukharin reminds us, “the state power sucks in almost all branches of production; it not only maintains the general conditions of the exploitative process; the state more and more becomes a direct exploiter, organizing and directing production as a collective capitalist” (Callinicos 1982: 205).
It is a truism that nation and its corollary problematique, nationalism, presupposes the imperative of hierarchization and asymmetry of power in a political economy of general exchange. The prime commodity exchanged is now labor-power. Founded on socially constructed myths or traditions, the nation is posited by its proponents as a normal state of affairs used to legitimize the control and domination of one group over others. Such ideology has to be demystified and exposed as contingent on the changing grid of social relations; that is, on how domination by force is legitimized via the state. Pierre Bourdieu’s reformulation of Max Weber’s formula of the state as the agency monopolizing the legitimate use of physical and symbolic violence over a definite territory/population may be useful here: “The state is the culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital; capital of physical force or instruments of coercion (army, police), economic capital, cultural or (better) informational capital, and symbolic capital. It is this concentration as such which constitutes the state as the holder of a sort of metacapital granting power over other species of capital and over their holders” (1998: 41-42).
This meta-capital, more precisely statist capital (Bourdieu 1991; 1992) enables the dominant class to articulate the field of national identity, the habitus of national belonging, to reinforce the prevailing ownership/allocation of economic and symbolic capital. A critique of essentialist nationalism, or its expression in “bodily beliefs,” passions and dispositions that make up the habitus of racism, cannot succeed unless it enables “the transformation of the conditions of the production and transformation of dispositions (Bourdieu 2000: 180), conditions which are social constructs or artifacts resulting from historical struggles.
This heuristic notion of the state as distinguished from the nation in the field of social power eludes postcolonial thinking. Postcolonial theory claims to expose the artificial and arbitrary nature of the nation: “This myth of nationhood, masked 36
by ideology, perpetuates nationalism, in which specific identifiers are employed to create exclusive and homogeneous conceptions of national traditions” (Ashcroft et al 1998, 150). Such signifiers of homogeneity not only fail to represent the diversity of the actual “nation” or body politic, but also serves to impose the interests of a section of the community as the general interest. One example is the imposition of “Englishness” on the heterogeneous constituencies of the United Kingdom after World War II, as Stuart Hall (1997) recently pointed out. But this is not all. In the effort to make this universalizing intent prevail, the instrumentalities of state power-the military and police, religious and educational institutions, judiciary and legal apparatuses--are deployed. Hence, from this orthodox postcolonial stance, the nation-state and its ideology of nationalism are alleged to have become the chief source of violence and conflict since the French Revolution. Anatomy of Violence
Mainstream social science regards violence as a species of force which violates, breaks, or destroys a normative state of affairs. It is coercion tout court. Violence is often used to designate force devoid of legitimacy or legally sanctioned authority. Should violence as an expression of physical force always be justified by political reason in order to be meaningful and therefore acceptable? If such a force is used by a state, an inherited political organ legitimized by “the people” or “the nation,” should we not distinguish between state-defined purposes and in what specific way nationalist ideologies or nation-making mechanisms are involved in those state actions? State violence and assertion of national identity need not be automatically conflated so as to implicate nationalism--whose nationalism?-- in all class/state actions in every historical period. It would ignore the historically specific “field of power” (in Bourdieu’s sense) in which symbolic capital is deployed in the interests of those who monopolize statist capital. Devoid of such specification, postcolonialists tend to indulge in an absolutist censure of nation-state power bereft of intentionality-in other words, power is reduced to violence construed as merely physical force akin to tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and so on. Violence, properly construed, signifies a political force that demands dialectical triangulation in order to grasp how nation and state are implicated in it. We might use, at this juncture, Hannah Arendt’s (1970) distinction between “power” as the socially sanctioned ability to act in concert, “force” as the “energy released by physical or social movements,” “authority” as a property that elicits obedience without coercion, and “violence” as the instrumental use of implements to multiply natural strength. Arendt notes how violence is often conflated with the power of government, but this is a mistake. The power of the state really depends on whether its commands are obeyed by its army or police forces who wield the instruments of violence; thus, “where commands are no longer obeyed, the means of violence are of no use….Everything depends on the power behind the violence. The sudden 37
dramatic breakdown of power that ushers in revolutions reveals in a flash how civil obedience—to laws, to rulers, to institutions—is but the outward manifestation of support and consent” from the citizenry (1970: 49; see also Benjamin 1978). In what sense is the nation or the symbolic capital of nationalism utilized as an instrument of violence or a means for legitimizing state power?
A materialist historicization of the phenomenon of nationalism is needed to determine the complicity of individual states in specific outbreaks of violence. Postcolonial criticism supposedly abhors totalization or generalization. But postcolonialists like Homi Bhabha (1990) resort to a questionable use of the versatile performativity of language to ascribe a semiotic indeterminacy to all nationalitarian projects, reducing the multifarious narratives of nations/peoples to a formulaic paradigm of hybridity and syncretism. Bhabha’s absolutization of contingency and local knowledge derived from Foucault, especially the dogma of singularity attached to the “event” as “the reversal of a relationship of forces” (Foucault 1984; see Ebert 1996), rules out the sedimented potency of traditions, the counter-memory of populardemocratic revolts, and the structuring impact of habitus in regions and localities deemed crucial in undermining colonial authority. While postcolonialists (Bhabha 1999) seek to expose the doubled or supplementary nature of the national sign in order to open a critical space to alter the communal values of the dominant culture and to allow “the people” to negotiate other possibilities in their placing between object and subject status, they eliminate outright the nation-form as a possible vehicle for popular struggles. The subalterns are forbidden to speak their own collective ethos of insurgency in their ethnic idioms. While the state has “governmentalized” power relations, analysis of the nation-state cannot exhaust the political economy of power-knowledge (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1982; Lemert and Gillan 1982). History is reduced to the ambiguities of aleatory occurrences immanent in the arbitrary play of textualities. This move rules out systematic critique and political intervention. The social field of contending determinate forces represented by political parties and diverse organizations cannot be conceived at all in the face of unintelligible singularities defying the mediating categories of class, nation, race, gender, and so on. In this light, what makes the postcolonialist argument flawed becomes clear in its non-referential semiotics (more on this later) and a kind of non-sequitur reasoning justified by a general deconstructive, post-structuralist rationality. It is perhaps easy to expose the contingent nature of the nation once its historical condition of possibility is pointed out. But it is more difficult to argue that once its socially contrived scaffolding is revealed, then the nation-state and its capacity to mobilize and apply the means of violence can be restricted if not curtailed. Exposing the artificiality of the nation is not the same as delegitimizing the violence of the state or the political authority of the classes and groups manifest in juridical institutions and state bureaucracy. We can pose this question at this point: Can one seriously claim that once the British state is shown to rest on the myth of the Magna Carta or the United States 38
government on the covenant of the Founding Fathers to uphold the interests of every citizen--except of course African slaves and other non-white peoples, then one has undermined the power of the British or American nation-state? Not that this is an otiose, wrong-headed task. Debunking has been the classic move of those protesting against an unjust status quo purporting to be the natural and normal condition for everyone. But it should not be mistaken as a substitute for the actual organized resistance of the oppressed and exploited multitudes.
It is not superfluous here to counsel ourselves again: the weapon of criticism, as Marx once said, needs to be reinforced by the principled criticism of weapons. If we want to guard against committing the essentialist dogmatism of the imperial nationalists, we need a historicizing strategy of ascertaining how force--the energy of social collectivities--turns into violence for the creation or destruction of social orders and singular life-forms. The sovereignty struggle of aboriginal groups has become a crucible for testing solidarity or betrayal. Understood as embodying “the pathos of an elemental force,” the insurrectionary movements of indigenes have been deemed the source of a dynamic primordial energy that feeds “the legal Modernist composite of primitivism and experimentalism,” a fusion of “radical discontinuity and reciprocal facilitation” (Berman 1995, 238). But the American Indians (as well as the native Hawai’ians) are asserting a communal right to lands they have been dispossessed of; their struggles for self-determination, coeval with the rise of the imperial nationstate, belong to a kind of “modernity” not comprehended by postcolonial doctrine. The question of the violence of the nation-state thus hinges on the linkage between the two categories, “nation” and “state.” A prior distinction perhaps needs to be made between “nation” and “society” since these two are often muddled in postcolonial discourse. While the former “may be ordered, the [latter] orders itself” (Brown 1986). Most historical accounts remind us that the modern nation-state has a beginning--and consequently, it is often forgotten--and an ending. But the analytic and structural distinction between the referents of nation (local groups, community, domicile or belonging) and state (Bourdieu’s meta-capital, governance, machinery of sanctioning laws, disciplinary codes, military) is often elided because the force of nationalism is often conflated with the violence of the state apparatuses, an error compounded by ignoring the social classes involved in each sphere. This is the lesson of Marx and Lenin’s necessary discrimination between oppressor and oppressed nations--a nation that oppresses another cannot really claim to be free. Often the symptom of this fundamental error is indexed by the formula of counterpointing the state to civil society, obfuscating the symbiosis and synergy between them. This error may be traced partly to the Hobbesian conflation of state and society in order to regulate the anarchy of the market and of brutish individualism violating civil contracts (Ollman 1993).
39
Mapping Nation Forms Before dealing with how society was nationalized, it may be useful to recall the metaphysics of the origin of the nation elaborated in Ernest Renan’s 1882 lecture, “What is a nation?” This may be considered one of the originary locus of nationalism (in Europe, at least) conceived as a primitivist revolt against the centralized authority of modernizing industrial states. Renan’s idea of the nation as a kind of total destiny finds resonance in Max Weber’s praise of the state’s capacity to impart meaning to death, the state as a “purposefully constructed, functionally specific machine” (Poggi 1978: 101) which appeals to and mobilizes nationalist sentiments. While Renan emphasized a community founded on acts of sacrifice and their memorialization, this focus does not abolish the fact that the rise of the merchant bourgeoisie marked the start of the entrenchment of national boundaries first drawn in the age of monarchical absolutism. The establishment of the market coincided with the introduction of taxation, customs, tariffs, etc., punctuated by the assertion of linguistic distinctions among the inhabitants of Europe. Karl Polanyi’s thesis of The Great Transformation (1957) urges us to attend to the complexities in the evolution of the nation-state in the world system of commodity exchange. We also need to take into account Ernest Gellner’s (1983) argument that cultural and linguistic homogeneity has served from the outset as a functional imperative for states administering a commodity-centered economy and its class-determining division of social labor. A more empirically nuanced explanation for how society was nationalized is provided by Etienne Balibar. Starting from the premise that the world-economy is a system of constraints, not a self-regulating invariant system (as academic globalization theory would have it), subject to the unpredictable dialectic of its internal contradictions, Balibar describes how the privileged status of the nation form “derives from the fact that, locally, that form made it possible (at least for an entire historical period) for struggles between heterogeneous classes to be controlled and for not only a ‘capitalist class’ but the bourgeoisies proper to emerge from these— state bourgeoisies both capable of political, economic and cultural hegemony and produced by that hegemony” (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991: 90). Thus, to resolve the internal contradictions, the bourgeoisie restructured the state in the national form. This nationalized state intervened (according to Balibar and Wallerstein) “in the very reproduction of the economy and particularly in the formation of individuals,” whereby individuals of all classes were subordinated “to their status as citizens of the nation-state, to the fact of their being ‘nationals.’ The key term in this narrative of nationalization is “hegemony,” in this instance capitalist hegemony (domination by consent) based on the formal nationalization of citizenship. This function of hegemony, now realized through the sublimation of class contradictions in the nation form, is ignored by postcolonial theory. Postcolonialists subscribe to a post-structuralist hermeneutic of nationalism as a primordial 40
destabilizing force devoid of rationality. And so while the shaping of the nation-state in the centuries of profound social upheavals did not follow a transparent linear trajectory--we have only to remember the untypical origins of the German and Italian nation-states, not to speak of the often intractable nationalist mobilizations in Greece, Turkey, and the colonized regions—that is not enough reason to ascribe an intrinsic negativity or belligerency to the nation as such. States may rise and fall, as the absolute monarchs and dynasties did, but sentiments and practices constituting the nation follow another rhythm or temporality not easily dissolved into the vicissitudes of the modern expansive state. Nor does this mean that nations, whether in the North or the South, exert a stabilizing and conservative influence on social movements working for radical changes in the distribution of power and resources.
What seems obvious at this point is that the effects of state violence, or the consequences of the instrumental application of force (following Arendt), cannot be judged as damaging or healthy as such without defining clearly the actors/agents involved, the purposes or ends of state activity, and the social field of forces in their dialectical interaction at specific historical conjunctures and epochs. Otherwise, jingoist, white-supremacist nationalism may be lumped with struggles for genuine national autonomy or sovereignty on the ground that both invoke the “nation.” In pursuing a historically situated analysis of violence, we need to avoid collapsing the difference between the concept of the “nation-state” and the complex, variegated import of nationalist agendas around the world. Whence originates the will to exclude, to dominate? Philosophically, this has been traced to the dialectical emergence of the communal universal self threatened by the violence of the Other in Hegel’s philosophy. Politically, nationalism has served a practical function. According to Anthony Giddens, “what makes the ‘nation’ integral to the nation-state…is not the existence of sentiments of nationalism but the unification of an administrative apparatus over precisely defined territorial boundaries in a complex of other nationstates” (1987: 172). That is why the rise of nation-states coincided with wars and the establishment of the military bureaucratic machine. From this perspective, the state refers to the political institution with centralized authority and monopoly of coercive agencies coinciding with the rise of global capitalism, while nationalism denotes the diverse configuration of peoples based on the commonality of symbols, beliefs, traditions, and so on.
Mindful of fundamentalist teleologies and moralisms, we need to guard against confusing historical periods and categories. Imagining the nation unified on the basis of secular citizenship and self-representation, as Benedict Anderson (1991) once demonstrated, was only possible when print capitalism arose in conjunction with the expansive state. But that in turn was possible when the trading bourgeoisie developed the means of communication under pressure of market competition and internal exigencies. Moreover, the dissemination of the Bible in different vernaculars did not translate into a monopoly of violence by the national churches. In Latin America, however, the “nation as imagined community” exhibited multiple symptoms of abortive birth, stagnation, and premature decay, precipitated by mutations in the 41
social field in which the violence of the feudal/tributary landlord and slaveholding classes collided with the predatory incursions of mercantile and industrial capitalism (Franco 1997). It is obvious that the sense of national belonging, whether based on clan or tribal customs, language, religion, etc., certainly has a historical origin and localizing motivation different from the emergence of the capitalist state as an agency to rally the populace to serve the needs of the commercial class and the goal of accumulation. The uneven development of the colonized nation-states led by compradors and feudal landlords, dependent formations which have been thoroughly investigated by Samir Amin (1980), Peter Gran (1996), and others, needs to be demarcated from the European metropolitan experience discussed by Balibar, Giddens, and others. Refusals and Denials
Given the rejection of a materialist analysis of the contradictions in any social formation, postcolonial critics find themselves utterly at a loss in making coherent sense of nationalism as a historically variegated phenomenon. The reason lies in its adherence to the closure of conventionalist self-referentiality wrongly ascribed to Saussure (Merquior 1986). Whereas, in Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotics, signs are not only limited to iconic and symbolic kinds, but also perform indexical functions (reference to an experimentally verifiable world outside discourse), postcolonial theory is locked in the “prison-house of language” and the vertigo of ceaseless interpretation (Sheriff 1989). The community of interpretants disappears (Rochberg-Halton 1986). Representations of the historicity of the nation give way to a Nietzschean will to invent reality as polysemic discourse, a product of enunciatory and performative acts. No wonder the nation becomes culpable of nationalist aggression.
Postcolonial critics resort to a duplicitous if not equivocating stance in regard to nation-centered cultures vis-à-vis diasporic cosmopolitanism (see Appadurai 1994; Mohanty 1994). They perceive nationalism as “an extremely contentious site” in which notions of self-determination and identity collide with notions of domination and exclusion. Such oppositions, however, prove unmanageable indeed if a mechanical idealist perspective is employed. That view in fact leads to an irresolvable muddle in which nation-states as the field of antagonism for the extraction of surplus value (profit) and “free” exchange of commodities also become violent agencies preventing “free” action in a global marketplace that crosses national boundaries. Averse to concrete historical grounding, postcolonialism regards nationalist ideology as the cause of individual and state competition for goods and resources in the “free market,” with this market conceived as a creation of ideology. I cite one postcolonial authority who, in a mode of double-speak, attributes violence to the nation-state on one hand and liberal disposition to the nation on the other: 42
The complex and powerful operation of the idea of a nation can be seen also in the great twentieth-century phenomenon of global capitalism, where the “free market” between nations, epitomized in the emergence of multinational companies, maintains a complex, problematic relationship with the idea of nations as natural and immutable formations based on shared collective values. Modern nations such as the United States, with their multi-ethnic composition, require the acceptance of an overarching national ideology (in pluribus unum). But global capitalism also requires that the individual be free to act in an economic realm that crosses and nullifies these boundaries and identities (Ashcroft et al, 1998, 151).
First of all, it is misleading and foolish then to label the slogan “one in many” as the U.S. hegemonic ideology. Officially the consensual ideology of the U.S. is neoliberal “democracy” centered on a normative utilitarian individualism with a neoSocial Darwinist orientation. U.S. ”Manifest Destiny” has been refurbished with a global modernizing mission: witness Bosnia, Afghanistan, Colombia, and so on. The doctrine of formal pluralism underwrites an acquisitive or possessive ethos that fits perfectly with mass consumerism and the gospel of the unregulated market. Global finance capital and business finds sanction in this brand of U.S. cosmopolitanism signaled by McDonald, Microsoft/IBM, Broadway musicals, and Hollywood films (McChesney, Wood and Foster 1998). It is within this framework that we can comprehend how the ruling bourgeoisie of each sovereign state utilizes nationalist sentiment and the violence of the state apparatuses to impose their will. Consequently, the belief that the nation-state simultaneously prohibits economic freedom and promotes multinational companies actually occludes the source of political and juridical violence--for example, the war against Serbia by the NATO (an expedient coalition of nation-states led by the United States), or the stigmatization of rogue and “terrorist” states (North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan—“the axis of evil”) by the draconian standards of “transnational” capitalism. One can then assert that the most likely source of political violence--and I am speaking of that kind where collective energy and intentionality are involved-is the competitive drive for accumulation in the world market system where the propertied class of each nation-state is the key actor mobilizing its symbolic capital made up of ethnic loyalties and national imaginaries. We have now moved from the formalistic definition of the nation as a historic construct to the nation as a character in the larger all-encompassing plot of capitalist development and imperial expansion. What role this protagonist has played and will play is now the topic of controversy. It is not enough to simply ascribe to the trading or commercial class the shaping of a new political form, the nation-state, to replace city states, leagues, municipal kingdoms, and oligarchic republics. Why such “imagined communities” should serve as a more efficacious political instrument 43
for the hegemonic bloc of property-owners, is the question which I have already anticipated at the beginning of this essay.
Another approach to our topic is to apply dialectical analysis to the historical record of national sovereignty alluded to earlier. Historians have described the crafting of state power for the new bourgeois nations in Enlightenment philosophy. During the emergence of mercantile capitalism Jean Bodin and Hugo Grotius theorized the sovereignty of the nation as the pivot of centralized authority and coercive power (Bowle 1947). The French Revolution posited the “people,” the universal rights of man, as the foundation of legitimacy for the state. In the passage from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, the people as nation, the historical act of constituting the polity as national-popular domain of public life, gradually acquires libidinal cathexis enough to inspire movements of anticolonial liberation across national boundaries. Its influence on the U.S. Constitution as well as on personalities like Sun Yat-Sen, Jose Rizal, and other “third world” radical democrats has given the principle of popular sovereignty a cross-cultural if not universal status (on Filipino nationalism, see San Juan 2000). Within the system of nation-states, for Marxists, “recognition of national rights is an essential condition for international solidarity” (Lowy 1998: 59) in the worldwide fight for socialism and a class-less political order. Nations thus differ in terms of who controls state-power and for what ends. Capitalist states claim legitimacy in terms of the putative rule of the majority. The universal principle of people’s rights is generally considered to be the basis of state power for the modern nation, “the empowerment, through this bureaucracy, of the interests of the state conceived as an abstraction rather than as a personal fiefdom” (Ashcroft et al 1998, 153). A serious mistake occurs when the nation and its legitimating principle of popular sovereignty becomes confused with the state bureaucracy construed either as an organ transcending the interest of any single class, or as the “executive committee” of the bourgeoisie. A mechanical, not dialectical, method underlies this failure to connect the ideology, politics, and economics of the bourgeois revolution with the supremacy of the propertied class. This quasi-Hegelian interpretation posits the popular will of the post-Renaissance nation-states as the prime motor of world expansion, of 19th-century colonialism. Instead of regarding the West’s”civilizing mission” as a program informed by the gospel of progress via profit-making, postcolonialists consider the ideology of national glory tied to “the unifying signifiers of language and race.” Ideological justification in actuality precedes and accompanies colonial conquest and domination. Nationalism, the need to superimpose the unifying myth of the imperial nation-state, is not only generated by the bourgeois agenda of controlling and regulating the space of its market, but also by the imperative of seizing markets and resources outside territories and peoples. Nationalism is then interpreted by postcolonial theorists as equivalent to colonialism; the nation is an instrument of imperialist aggrandizement, so that if newly liberated ex-colonies employ nationalist discourse and principles, they will only be replicating the European model whose myths, sentiments, and traditions justified the violent suppression of “internal 44
heterogeneities and differences.” The decolonizing nation is thus pronounced an oxymoron, a rhetorical if not actual impossibility. One example often adduced is Irish cultural nationalism; its culturalist absolutism, in Seamus Deane’s judgment, “has found in postcolonialism the future that it deserves” (1998: 368).
Lacking any historical anchorage, the argument of postcolonial theory generates inconsistencies due to an exorbitant culturalism and the concentration on diffuse power networks inspired by Foucault (Smart 1985). Just as Foucault repudiated Marxism for being an inversion of bourgeois political economy, postcolonialists condemned nationalist thought for adopting the same essentialist, transcendental, objectifying epistemology of Orientalism (Lazarus 1999). Foucault rejects foundationalist historiography but succumbs to the fallacy of equating all questions of law and sovereignty with monarchical absolutism. Gillian Rose has detailed the numerous sophistries in Foucault’s ontology of power in which juridico-discursive concepts are refunctionalized after their negation by his rules of immanence, continual variations, double conditioning, and technical polyvalence of discourse. Foucault regards violence as endemic: “By drawing on a theory of civil society without a theory of the state Foucault does not open up the perspective of myriad powers in place of the conventional sovereign and singular power, he introduces or posits a spurious universal: warfare” (Rose 1984: 200). Foucault’s omnipresent power as a constitutive subject in the Kantian or Husserlian sense (Callinicos 1989), or as Nietzschean power-knowledge causing mischievous mayhem everywhere, finds its resonance in the postcolonial repertoire of mimicry, ambivalence, indeterminacy, as well as in the deconstructive methodology of the Subaltern Studies group (Callinicos 1995). This relativistic perspectivalism which ironically prescribes totalizing schemes can not discriminate between the reactive nationalism of the oppressor and that of the oppressed. Rejection of the political economy of structured power relations leads to untenable and spurious interpretations of the historical process. Because they disregard the historical evolution of the nation-state discussed by Balibar, Anderson, Smith (1971), among others, postcolonial critics uphold the sphere of culture as the decisive force in configuring social formations. Not that culture is irrelevant in explaining political antagonisms. Rather, it is erroneous when such antagonisms are translated into nothing but the tensions of amorphous cultural differences. The dogma of cultural difference (for Charles Taylor, the need and demand for recognition in a modern politics of identity) becomes then the key to explaining subalternity, racism, and class exploitation in subordinated, neocolonized formations. Ambivalence, hybridity, and ludic interstitiality become privileged signifiers over against homogenizing symbols and indices whose “authority of cultural synthesis” is the target of attack. Biopolitics, disciplinary regimes of power/knowledge, and discursive performances serve as the primary foci of analysis over against the practices of “localized materialism” and a demonized economistic reductionism.
45
The limits of fetishisizing culture in postcolonial theory can be illustrated briefly. The most flagrant evidence of the constrained parameters of the postcolonial diagnosis may be found in its construal of racist ideology as “the construction and naturalization of an unequal form of intercultural relations” (Ashcroft et al 1998, 46). If racism occurs only or chiefly on the level of “intercultural relations,” from this constricted optic, the other parts of a given social formation (political, economic) become superfluous and marginal. Politics is then reduced to an epiphenomenal manifestation of discourse and instrumentalized language-games. Fanon’s Intervention
In the fashionable discourse of postcolonialists, dependent nations and the nationalism of neocolonized peoples are charged for being complicit with the conduct of Western colonialism and its Enlightenment metanarrative. They become anathema to deconstructionists hostile to any emancipatory project in the “third world” inspired by egalitarian, socialist goals. This is the reason why postcolonial critics have a difficult time dealing with Frantz Fanon (1961) and his engagement with decolonizing mass violence as a strategic response of people of color to the inhumane violence of occupying settlers and pillagers. Fanon’s invocation of a nation-making principle is the direct antithesis to any culturalist syndrome, in fact an antidote to it, because he emphasizes the organic integration of cultural action with a popular-democratic program of subverting colonialism. Discourse and power are articulated by Fanon in the dialectics of practice inscribed in the specific historical conditions of their effectivity. Fanon’s theory of national liberation proves itself a true “concrete universal” in that it incorporates via a dialectical sublation the richness of the particulars embodied in the Algerian revolution and generalized in the revolt of the impoverished majority, “the wretched of the earth.”
Given this historicizing method, Fanon refuses any demarcation of culture from politics and economics. Liberation is always tied to the question of property relations, the social division of labor, and the process of social reproduction—all these transvalued by the imperative of the radical transformation of colonial relations and its Manichean subterfuge. Opposed to Fanon’s denunciation of “abstract populism,” Bhabha and others (e.g., Said 1993) fetishize an abstract “people” located in diasporic flux and borderline spaces. Such recuperation of colonial hegemony via a “third space” or contrapuntal passage of negotiation reveals the comprador character of postcolonial theories of translation and cultural exchange. Transcultural syncretism devised to abolish the nation substitutes for anti-imperialist revolution a modus vivendi of opportunist compromises.
National liberation and social justice via class struggle are interdependent. As Leopoldo Marmora observes, “While classes, in order to become predominant, have to constitute themselves as national classes, the nation arises from class struggle” 46
(1984, 113). This is why, for Marx and Engels, the proletariat in bondage to capital does not have a country—unless it has constituted itself as the nation through the ordeals of class war: “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat is at first a national struggle,” a fight for hegemonic leadership (1968: 22). The popular-democratic aspiration for self-determination contains both national and social dimensions. This also enables us to grasp the objective significance invested in Gramsci’s ideal of the national-popular: proletarian hegemony as the national collective will of the people built from alliances, compromises, affiliations, and pedagogical sharing of national conditions and traditions—the people, not the bourgeoisie, become the nation (Forgacs 1993; Wertheim 1974). For analytic purposes, we need to ascertain the distinction between the state as an instrument of class interest and the nation/people as the matrix of emergent sovereignty. The authority of the bourgeois state as regulative juridical organ and administrative apparatus with a monopoly of coercive force derives from its historical origin in enforcing individual, civic rights of freedom against the absolutist monarchy. National identity is thus used by the state to legitimize its actions within a delimited territory in the process of commanding the mobilization and coordination of policy (Held 1992). Formally structured as a Rechststaat, the bourgeois nationstate functions to insure the self-reproduction of capital through market forces and the continuous commodification of labor power (Jessop 1982). Fanon understands that anti-colonial insurgency challenges the global conditions guaranteeing valorization and realization of capital, conditions in which the internationalization and nationalization of the circuits of capital are enforced by the bloc of capitalist nation-states and its hegemony over the planet.
We can resolve the initial paradox of the nation, a Janus-faced phenomenon (Nairn 1977), by considering the following historical background. The idea of stateinitiated violence (as opposed to communal ethnic-motivated violence) performs a heuristic role in the task of historicizing any existing state authority and questioning the peaceful normalcy of the status quo. The prevailing social order is then exposed as artificial and contingent; what is deemed normal or natural reveals itself as an instrument of partial interests. But the relative permanence of certain institutional bodies and their effects need to be acknowledged in calculating political strategies. The long duration of collective and individual memories exerts its influence through the mediation of what Bourdieu (1993) calls “habitus” and its activation in various fields of social transactions.
The space of the nation is always a field of conflict among social blocs for hegemony. We begin to understand that the state’s hierarchical structure is made possible because of the institutionalized violence that privileges the hegemony (moral and intellectual leadership crafted via negotiating compromises) of a bloc of classes over competing blocs and their alternative programs. Hegemony is always underwritten by coercion (open or covert, subtle or crude) in varying proportions and contingencies. The demarcated territory claimed by a state in rivalry with other states becomes for 47
Weber one major pretext for the state monopoly of legitimate violence in order to defend private property and promote the overseas interests of the domestic business class (Krader 1968). Historically the nation form, as mentioned earlier, becomes a vehicle for unifying classes and groups under bourgeois hegemony. Retrospective and Inventory
The classical Marxist view of violence rejects the utopian idealization as well as the mechanical calculation of means-ends that vitiates the logic of Blanquist and Sorelian conceptions of social change (Sorel 1908; 1972). Marx disavowed utopian socialism in favor of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie through a combination of violent and peaceful means depending on the ever-changing alignment of forces. Instrumentalism is subordinated to a narrative of emancipation from class bondage. The objective of emancipating labor associated with the nation/people requires the exposure of commodity-fetishism and the ideology of equal exchange of values in the market. Reification and alienation in social relations account for the bourgeois state’s ascendancy. Where the state bureaucracy supporting the bourgeoisie and the standing army do not dominate the state apparatus completely (a rare case) or has been weakened, as in the case of the monarchy and the Russian bourgeoisie at the time of the 1917 Revolution, the working class might attain their goal of liberation by peaceful means; but in most cases, “the lever of the revolution will have to be force” harnessed by the masses in solidarity, unified by a program of abolishing the entire class system and its foundation.
Based on their historical inquiries, Marx and Engels understood the role of violence as the midwife in the birth of a new social order within the old framework of the nation-state. In his later years Engels speculated that with the changes in the ideological situation of the classes in any national territory, “a real victory of an insurrection over the military in street fighting is one of the rarest exceptions.” In an unusual historic conjuncture, however, the Bolshevik revolution mobilized mass strikes and thus disproved Engels. Nevertheless, Marx’s “analytical universality,” to use John Dunn’s (1979: 78) phrase, remains valid in deploying the concept of totality to comprehend the nexus of state, class and nation. We can rehearse here the issues that need to be examined from the viewpoint of totality: Was Lenin’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” an imposition of state violence, or the coercive rule of the people against the class enemy? If it is an instrumental means of the new proletarian state, did it implicate the nation? Is violence here both structured into the state system of apparatuses and inscribed in the collective agency of the working masses cognized as the nation? Is the political authority invoked by the proletarian state embodied in the class interest of all those exploited by capital (in both periphery and center) ascendant over all? Marxists critical of the Leninist interpretation denounce the use of state violence as an anarchist deviation, an arbitrary application of force. They affirm instead the law48
governed historical process that will inevitably transform capitalism into socialism, mainly through the spontaneous development of the productive forces, whatever the subjective intentions of the political protagonists involved. Such fatalism, however, rules out the intervention of a class-for-itself freed from ideological blinders and uniting all the oppressed with its moral-intellectual leadership, the cardinal axiom of socialist revolution (Lukacs 2000).
I think the most persuasive Marxist exposition on the role of violence in socialist revolution is Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Humanism and Terror (1947). Merleau-Ponty displaces the problematic of means-ends by locating revolutionary action in the praxis of the proletariat already at work in history: “The proletariat is both an objective factor of political economy and a system of subjective awareness, or rather a style of coexistence at once fact and value, in which the logic of history joins the forces of labor and the authentic experience of human life” (1969: 126-127). Revolutionary violence arising from social contradictions acquires legitimacy by the commitment of humans in a common situation, fighting injustice and daily exploitation within the national space, for a humanist future already being realized in the totality of historical acts.
Neoliberal thinkers for their part reject violence as an end in itself while accepting the brutalizing force of the market as normal and natural. Nor do they heed the cry of victims already doomed by the structure of their situation. This is epitomized by legal scholars who contend that primordial nationalist claims should be regulated by autonomous international law, “the domain of the metajuridique” (Berman 1995). By identifying nationalism as a primitive elemental force outside the jurisdiction of positive law, the legal expert claims to be receptive to its experimental creativity so that new administrative techniques can be devised to regulate the destabilization of Europe--and, for that matter, its colonial empires--by “separatist nationalisms.” The aim is to pacify the subalternized classes by juridical and culturalist prophylactic. As I have noted above in dealing with Fanon’s work, the nature of violence in the process of decolonization cannot be grasped by such dualistic metaphysics epitomized in the binarism of passion-versus-law. What is needed is the application of a historical materialist critique to the complex problem of national self-determination (as already envisaged by Merleau-Ponty and others). Revolutionaries like Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, despite their differences, stress the combination of knowledge and practice in analyzing the balance of political forces. They contend that class struggle is a form of knowledge/action, the civil strife of political groups, which can synthesize wars of position (legal, peaceful reforms) and the war of maneuver (organized frontal assault by armed masses, to use Gramsci’s terminology) in the transformation of social relations in any particular nation. What needs to be stressed here is the philosophical underpinning of the struggle for recognition and recovery of dignity. It invokes clearly the Hegelian paradigm of the relation between lord and bondsman in The Phenomenology of Mind. In this 49
struggle, the possibility of violence mediates the individual’s discovery of his finite and limited existence, his vulnerability, and his need for community. Piotr Hoffman’s gloss underlines the Hegelian motif of freedom as risk: “Violence …is the necessary condition of my emergence as a universal, communal being…for I can find common ground with the other only insofar as both of us can endure the mortal danger of the struggle and can thus think independently of a blind attachment to our particular selves” (1989, 145). Since the nation evokes sacrifice (Renan), the warrior’s death on the battlefield (Weber), honor (Sorel), self-transcendence, destiny, the state seeks to mobilize such nation-centered feelings and emotions to legitimize itself as a wider, more inclusive, and less artificial reality to attain its own accumulative goals. This metaphysical speculation needs the necessary interrogation of critique (Benhabib 1986). It needs to be qualified by specifying the state as a bourgeois “meta-capital” which supervises “the violent domination of men by men through the private possession of social capital” (Caudwell 191971, 110). Beyond the simplistic formulas of postcolonial thought, the nationalist struggle for recognition impelling anticolonial revolts displays a contentious, even recalcitrant, complexity. We also need to estimate the weight of other variables such as the uneven development of the world system of nation-states as a whole, the interaction of various fields of power (Bourdieu’s meta-capital vis-à-vis symbolic capital in each formation), and the vicissitudes of the post-Cold War accumulation crisis. In any case, whatever the moral puzzles entailed by the manifold genealogies of the nation-state, it is clear that a dogmatic pacifism is no answer to an effective comprehension of the real world and grass-roots intervention in it. Given the continued existence of nationstates amidst the almost unchallenged power of transnational corporations and the bloc of rich nation-states led by the current world-hegemon (the United States), can we choose between a “just” and an “unjust” war when nuclear weapons that can destroy the whole planet are involved? Violence on such a scale obviously requires the dialectical transcendence of the system of nation-states, of states administered by historically decadent and moribund classes, in the interest of planetary justice and survival (Meszaros 2001).
Overall, the question of violence cannot be answered within the framework of the Realpolitik of the past but only within the framework of nation-states living in mutual reciprocity. Causality, however, has to be ascertained and responsibility assigned even if the nation is construed as “an interpretive construct” (Arnason 1990: 230). My view is that the action of the propertied classes using the various state organs for the legalized expropriation of unpaid labor (surplus value) of millions of people around the planet is the crux of the problem. Precisely because of corporate globalizing, James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer cogently explain, “it is impossible to conceive of the expansion and deepening involvement of multinational banks and corporations without the prior political, military and economic intervention of the nation-state” (2001: 54). If nations have been manipulated by states dominated by possessive/acquisitive blocs that have undertaken and continue to undertake imperial conquests ostensibly for humanitarian goals, then the future of humanity 50
and the entire ecosystem can be insured only by eliminating those institutions and practices that are the source of material and symbolic violence inflicted on their citizens by these states.
To be sure, the “New World Order” policed by “homeland” patriots cannot be changed by scholastic postcolonialism. I propose that we reappropriate the internationalist horizon of a revolutionary Marxism which has so far been confused with its multiple national-bureaucratic counterfeits. Michael Lowy’s advocacy may help cure the intellectual pessimism that paralyzes the optimism of the will of those fighting the relentless commodification of the planet: Marxism has the advantage of a universalistic and critical position, in contrast to the passions and intoxications of nationalist mythology. On the condition, however, that this universalism does not remain abstract, grounded on the simple negation of national particularity, but becomes a true “concrete universal” (Hegel), able to incorporate, under the form of a dialectical Aufhebung, all the richness of the particular….For Marxism, the most important universal value is the liberation of human beings from all forms of oppression, domination, alienation and degradation. This is a utopian universality, in opposition to the ideological ones, which apologetically present the Western status quo as being the accomplished universal human culture, the end of history, the realization of the absolute spirit. Only a critical universality of this kind, looking towards an emancipated future, is able to overcome shortsighted nationalisms, narrow culturalisms, and ethnocentrisms (2000: 10-11).
It is appropriate to add here Rosa Luxemburg’s insistence that “no nation is free whose national existence is based upon the enslavement of another people…. So long as capitalist states exist, i.e., so long as imperialistic world policies determine and regulate the inner and the outer life of a nation, there an be no ‘national selfdetermination’ either in war or in peace” (1976: 290). Within such a framework, the nation-form, and its surrogates, can then be reconstituted and/or superseded in order to insure that the new social arrangements will not generate opportunities for profit-motivated state violence to recur. That revolutionary transformation will surely render obsolete all postcolonial speculations on the withering of the nation, much less the nation-state, in a world where transnational finance governs almost absolutely but, we hope, not permanently.
51
REFERENCES
Amin, S. Class and Nation. New York, 1980. Anderson, B. Imagined Communities. London, 1991. Appadurai, A. “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” in Williams and Chrisman ed. (1994): 324-339. Arendt, H. On Violence. New York, 1970. Arnason, J. “Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity,” in Global Culture, ed. M. Featherstone. London, (1990): 207-236. Arrighi, G. “The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism,” in Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International relations, ed. S. Gill. Cambridge, (1993): 148-185. Ashcroft, B. et al. Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies. New York, 1998. Balibar, E. and I. Wallerstein. Race, Nation, Class. London, 1991. Benhabib, S. Critique, Norm, and Utopia. New York, 1986. Benjamin, W. Reflections. New York, 1978. Berman, N. “Modernism, Nationalism and the Rhetoric of Reconstruction,” in After Identity, ed. D. Danielsen and K. Engle. New York, (1995): 229-250. Bhabha, H. “DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern Nation,” in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. A. Elliott. Oxford, (1999): 211-219. Bourdieu, P. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, 2000. ——, Practical Reason. Stanford, 1998. ——, The Field of Cultural Production. New York, 1993. ——, Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, 1991. ——, and L.J.D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, 1992. Bowle, J. Western Political Thought. London, 1947. Brown, Michael. The Production of Society. Totowa, 1986. Callinicos, A. Is There a Future for Marxism? Atlantic Highlands, 1982. ——, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. New York, 1989. ——, “Wonders Taken for Signs: Homi Bhabha’s Postcolonialism,” in Post-Ality: Marxism and Postmodernism, ed. M. Zavarzadeh et al. Washington DC, (1995): 98112. Caudwell, C. Studies & Further Studies in a Dying Culture. New York, 1971. Deane, S. “Imperialism/Nationalism,” in Critical Terms for Literary Study, ed. F. Lentricchia and T. McLauglin, 2nd ed. Chicago, 1995. Dreyfus, H. and P. Rabinow. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago, 1982. Dunn, John. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge, 1979. 52
Fanon, F. The Wretched of the Earth. New York, 1961. Forgacs, D. The Cultural Studies Reader, 2nd ed. New York, 1999. Foucault, M. The Foucault Reader, ed. P. Rabinow. New York, 1984. Franco, J. “The Nation as Imagined Community,” in McClintock et al ed. (1997): 130137. Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, 1983. Giddens, A. The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge, 1985. ——, Social Theory and Modern Society. Cambridge, 1987. Gran, P. Beyond Eurocentrism. Syracuse, 1996.
Hall, S. “The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity,” in McClintock et al ed. (1997): 173-187. Held, D. “The Development of the Modern State,” in Formations of Modernity, ed. S. Hall and B. Gieben. Cambridge, (1992): 71-126. Hoffman, P. Violence in Modern Philosophy. Chicago, 1989. Howard, M. The Lessons of History. Oxford, 1991. Jessop, B. The Capitalist State. New York, 1982. Krader, L. Formation of the State. Englewood Cliffs, 1968. Lazarus, N. Nationalism and Cultural Practice in the Postcolonial World. Cambridge, 1999. Lemert, C. and G. Gillan. Michel Foucault: Social Theory and Transgression. New York, 1982. Lowy, M. Fatherland or Mother Earth. London, 1998. ——, Nationalism and the New World Order. Working Papers Series, Washington State University. Pullman, 2000. Lukacs, G. In Defense of History and Class Consciousness. London, 2000. Luxemburg, R. The National Question, ed. H. Davis. New York, 1976 [1917]. Marmora, L. “Is There a Marxist Theory of Nation?” in Rethinking Marx, ed. S. Hanninen and L. Paldan. New York, (1984): 108-114. Marx, K. and F. Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York, 1968 [1848]. McChesney, R. et al. eds. Capitalism and the Information Age. New York, 1998. McClintock A. et al ed. Dangerous Liaisons, Minneapolis, 1997. Merleau-Ponty, M. Humanism and Terror. Boston, 1969 [1947]. Merquior, J.G. From Prague to Paris. London, 1986. Meszaros, I. Socialism or Barbarism. New York, 2001. Mohanty, C.T. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” in Williams and Chrisman ed. (1994): 196-220. Ollman, B. Dialectical Investigations. New York, 1993. 53
Petras, J. and H. Veltmeyer. Globalization Unmasked. New York, 2001. Poggi, G. The Development of the Modern State. Palo Alto, 1978. Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation. Boston, 1957. Rochberg-Halton, E. Meaning and Modernity: Social Theory in the Pragmatic Attitude. Chicago, 1986. Rose, G. Dialectic of Nihilism. New York, 1984. Said, E. Culture and Imperialism. London, 1993. San Juan, E. After Postcolonialism. Lanham, 2000. ——, “Bakhtin: Uttering the ‘(Into)nation of the Nation/People, ” in Bakhtin and the Nation, ed. San Diego Bakhtin Circle. Lewisburg, (2000): 118-133. Sassen, S. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York, 1998. Sheriff, J.K. The Fate of Meaning. Princeton, 1989. Smart, B. Michel Foucault. London, 1985. Smith, A. Theories of Nationalism. New York, 1971. ——, Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. New York, 1979. Sorel, G. Reflections on Violence. New York, 1972 [1906]. Taylor, C. “Nationalism and Modernity,” in Theorizing Nationalism, ed. R. Beiner. New York, (1999): 219-246. Tilly, C. “Western State-Making and Theories of Political Transformation,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe, ed. C. Tilly. Princeton, (1975): 632638. Wertheim, W.F. Evolution and Revolution. Baltimore, 1974. Williams, P. and L. Chrisman, ed. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory. New York, 1994.
54
55
56
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
On the Imperialist Cultural Offensive J. de Lima Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
57
58
A Keynote for the Commission 14 Workshop November 14, 2015
On the Imperialist Cultural Offensive J. de Lima Colleagues and friends!
It is my pleasure and honor to speak on the imperialist cultural offensive before this workshop to help set the framework for the topic “People’s Cultural Resistance Against Imperialist Cultural Offensive.”
Indeed, a long-standing war exists between imperialism and oppressed peoples in the cultural arena. This has been ongoing ever since colonial masters realized that swords, bayonets, guns and bombs were not enough to quell armed resistance or wipe out entire rebel villages to effect the subjugation of a people. Since then the war for hearts and minds have continued as conquered peoples resist their subjugation in the cultural arena even before they themselves pick up the gun and fight back. We are all aware that the imperialists are still the dominant force, growing ever more sophisticated with their comprehensive so-called counterinsurgency campaigns using bombs, bullets and deception, the latter not only against resisting peoples but also against the people in their own heartland. On the other hand wars of resistance produce battalions of cultural activists to buoy up the revolutionary spirit of the fighters and the people. While the term “cultural activism” has come often to mean alternative or protestoriented themes and forms in literature and the arts, the arena of cultural activism is actually much broader. As we might have learned in our humanities and sociology courses, culture does not only include literature and the arts, but also language— first of all, economic systems, socio-political systems, customs and traditions, religion, and science and technology. It encompasses a wide range of systems of thought, communication and behavior as expressed in people’s daily lives. Culture is both material and nonmaterial and includes first of all the language and symbols we use in communicating, our food, shelter and clothing, technological instruments and technology, our entertainment and sports activities, our attitudes and values, ideologies, and many more.
59
Progressive social science as a whole, especially Marxist theory, ascribes a crucial role to culture in the workings of society.
In analyzing a society and deriving its laws of motion, Marxism proceeds by studying its economic base, then also its superstructure (politics and culture) both in their particularity and in their interaction. The class that controls the economic base and appropriates the surplus product is the determinant factor in the long run, producing its own framework of political rule and dominant cultural precepts. As Marx aptly said in The German Ideology:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.
However, the superstructure can become crucial in intensifying contradictions within the economic base or in breaking deadlocks towards resolution and general advance. Thus to be a cultural activist, one must understand the underlying contradictions and define one´s class stand. On whose side are we? As cultural activists, we stand with and for the people. We must expose and criticize oppression and obscurantism in any or many aspects of this vast mental, communication, and behavioral complex that we call culture, and espouse revolutionary changes in society in that very same space. In the past two or three decades now, the world’s countries and peoples have been facing a renewed cultural offensive by the foremost imperialist powers. This offensive advances in parallel with their economic and political-military offensives. This cultural offensive is led by US imperialism. It is the “soft power” aspect of the US ambition for full spectrum dominance in the economic, political, military, social and other spheres, including outer space. The other workshops will probably be providing the bigger context of this imperialist ambition for full spectrum dominance and how it is expressed in the various arenas of conflict. But in this workshop, we will focus on the themes, messages and forms of the imperialist offensive in the cultural arena. 60
Its biggest themes are emblazoned with slogans looming before us. The following are just a few examples of such slogans, and their central messages:
◆ Neoliberalism – The owners of capital should be free to profit where, when, and how they like, and should not be shackled but should be supported by state laws and regulations in this regard. However, state or inter-state regulations affecting the god of profit are anathema as they supposedly distort the operation of the “free market” (read: monopolies). ◆ Globalization – National barriers are obsolete and should be smashed wherever they still exist. Finance capital, goods and services must flow freely throughout the globe for everyone --read: for monopoly profit-taking. ◆ Capitalism as End of History – Other countries have tried alternative systems, and all have failed and have returned to capitalism. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it can reform its defects. A variant of this theme is: There Is No Alternative. People must suffer exploitation and oppression. ◆ War on Terror – All kinds of “terrorists” have proliferated throughout the world. They oppose or fight the US push for neoliberalism and globalization, and so they are enemies. Thus, it is right for the US to launch wars against them wherever they are. It is the US global mission to invade countries, overthrow governments, and kill people that breed or coddle the “terrorists”. ◆ American Exceptionalism – Americans have the right to do all of the above, because the USA has the best democratic system in the world. Under these central themes are a relentless stream of axioms and icons glorifying global monopoly capitalism. These cultural themes, messages, and symbols are constantly produced and disseminated by the most technologically powerful media systems that the world has ever known: print, broadcast media, the internet, and multimedia systems that encompass practically the whole world, 24/7 in real time, and with the capacity to manufacture so-called realities that fit the goals of imperialist domination. Unless anti-imperialist forces, including cultural activists, develop a people-oriented consciousness and conduct a cultural revolution by doing their own mass work among the people to draw from, and raise awareness of their concrete needs and interests, the insidious cultural messages of imperialism in their myriad forms can easily spread and diffuse among them and clamp like parasites or bad habits into their daily lives. We are all witness to this malady, as confirmed by anecdotes, case studies, and statistics. We confront the most insidious messages of US-led cultural imperialism:
◆ from its crudest forms, such as McDonald diets, publicly accessible porn, fashion and consumer whims that change from season to season, and more sophisticatedly Starbucks and the like with their banner of corporate social responsibility so 61
enticing to the intelligentsia; ◆ to its mainstream forms, such as TV crime series and reality shows, movie blockbusters, New York Times bestseller lists and virtual reality games that mostly distract and misinform; and ◆ all the way to high-level purveyors of imperialist ideology, such as the fine arts and literary elites, top-level universities, academic journals, policy think tanks, and new philosophical schools with outputs that pretend to being progressive or radical but are actually mere repackaging of self-indulgent petty bourgeois sensibilities in the service of the same rotten profit-ruled system. All the above, including sports, movies and other forms of entertainment that take a great deal of time to preoccupy large masses of people are used by the ruling class to preclude criticism of the system, shut out pro-people ideas and sentiment and give free rein to pro-imperialist and reactionary ideas and sentiments.
This cultural offensive is not simply one that is planned and implemented among the ideological and cultural elite of US imperialism, i.e., in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)-funded and big business-funded think tanks and media corporations, but more significantly, it is wired into all the economic, political-military, and cultural/ media agencies of the US government and MNCs, and in the international bodies where the US exercises significant influence.
Neoliberal globalization and US global military presence are intentionally designed to drive forward this cultural offensive. Globally and especially in third world countries, Multinational Corporations (MNC’s) conduct CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) ad or cause marketing campaigns; while US special forces undertake disaster, rescue and medical missions traditionally done by the Red Cross and charitable foundations to deliver more strongly than the latter the subliminal propaganda messages favoring US imperialism and its military forces embedded into seemingly humanitarian or charitable endeavors.
Furthermore, due to global labor mobility, even overseas contract workers and poor students on scholarships often become unwitting carriers of this cultural offensive when they bring or send home so-called “goodies” of their stay abroad, underscoring the massive influx of “superior” goods and lifestyles generated by global capitalism. Let us look further at some examples of common themes and messages carried by this imperialist cultural offensive:
◆ Extreme individualism is justified in the name of “freedom” but usually in the context of upholding the monopoly capitalist system that rewards the few at the expense of the many. This individualism is sometimes sugar-coated with a veneer of do-good charitable work a la Bill Gates. 62
◆ Closely related is the dream of getting rich—for example, by riding on capitalist financial/venture schemes (thus, the many success stories of small entrepreneurs or innovators rewarded big-time by the system), or by selling one’s artistic talents to instant stardom via Internet virality. ◆ Consumerism, or a crass type of individualist or hedonist materialism focused on satisfying personal wants and whims, devoid of any sense of responsibility to the collective and long-term needs of the poor and oppressed classes and sectors, of society at large, and of the planetary environment. ◆ Obsession with fantasy or futuristic worlds and superheroes (in novels, movies, TV series, comics, and digital games), mostly to lull people with dreamland scenarios and distract them from a full and concrete understanding of realworld problems and from exploring viable solutions or alternatives to the current rotten system. ◆ Covert or overt racism, as packaged in elite and white-dominated lifestyles (e.g. in fashion and fads, as reflected in advertising). Related to this is the notion of superiority of the cultural outputs of Western imperialist countries, whether it is a new piece of technology or research or novel. This cultural racism is often sugar-coated with ethnic tokens (as in films and music), which represent selected and safe icons of third world or non-elite cultures that have been “mainstreamed”. ◆ Glamorization of war, specifically on the use of high-tech weapons and individual superpowers, prettifying imperialist domination of small and weak peoples. Note that even in Hollywood movies that seemingly celebrate the victory of the small, the weak, and the native who persevered in resistance (e.g. Star Wars, Hunger Games, etc.), the victory is still due to class reconciliation after the worst villains are defeated and overthrown. Let us also take a closer look at the role of language. In the way this is used, especially the terminologies and catchwords that seep down to common usage, language serves as actual and potential packaging tools of cultural imperialism. We must be aware and wary of pitfalls in this particular area. For example, among agencies of the United Nations (UN), the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), and private donor institutions a distinctive development policy jargon has been spinned and spread to civil society Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and a few radical organizations. Using such jargon to engage with some NGOs within the narrow UN development framework may have some special uses. But simply adopting such jargons that hide the reality of exploitation, oppression and impoverishment can trap progressives and anti-imperialist propagandists into the UN development framework primarily serving the diminishing top one percent of the population that continues to dominate society. A huge challenge to all antiimperialist writers and other cultural activists is to study the language of the masses and adopt their style accordingly. In this regard, Mao Zedong had a lot to say in his “Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing”. 63
The imperialist cultural offensive has short-term and long-term impact on the world’s peoples, whether in the underdeveloped third world or in the most developed capitalist countries. This cultural offensive has become so pervasive worldwide that even the Western bourgeois academe has come to recognize its most obvious aspects, giving it the name “cultural imperialism”, the McDonaldization or globalization of culture, and producing extensive literature to explore its many ramifications among third world countries. Let us remember, however, that this offensive likewise impacts on the countries and peoples of the advanced capitalist countries as well as the US itself. The most debilitating long-term effect of this cultural offensive is in creating obstacles—big and small—towards the development of revolutionary or socialist class consciousness among the workers and other toiling masses, and towards a militant national and democratic consciousness among the oppressed peoples. If not countered and eventually defeated, such cultural offensive will produce a slew of petty-bourgeois subcultures that will numb the masses of working people.
Among other adverse effects on Third World countries, one particularly damaging impact of the imperialist cultural offensive is in the erosion and full-scale commercialization of local cultures in the guise of tourism. Selected and safe artifacts of local cultures are re-packaged into commodities and icons of a so-called “ethnic” but actually bourgeois-cosmopolitan culture. In the Philippines for example, young wealthy urbanites have taken to seasonal treks to the Cordillera region to get native tattoos, buy antique artifacts, and climbing up to sacred mountain sites in their carloads to take selfies, without even an iota of understanding of Cordillera indigenous people’s struggles for land and life.
Let me conclude by stating that your Commission does not deserve to be No. 14. Your concern ought to have a much higher valuation in the hierarchy of ILPS concerns. It directly relates to Concern #1 and suffuses all the other ILPS concerns. It may be moved up to number 4. Marshalling the arguments to justify such a higher prioritization may be a topic in your current workshop and the subject of an important resolution for consideration by the assembly. As cultural activists of the anti-imperialist movement let us take serious and comprehensive measures to counteract the imperialist offensive on all fronts, including measures in the cultural field that will serve as the basis of our tasks. In this regard, let us reflect on what has been accomplished and not accomplished over the last four years since the ILPS 4th International Assembly. While this keynote cannot preempt the workshop discussions that should produce those measures in the form of resolutions, may I suggest for the body to address the following concerns, which I see as pivotal in enhancing our capability to deliver the revolutionary message to the hundreds of millions of the masses: 64
◆ We must train ourselves to understand and deal with facts and events, as these unfold in the real-world conditions experienced by the masses. Let us not confine ourselves in ivory towers, honing our individual imaginations and crafts, away from the real world and the masses, but let us study current events, study history, immerse ourselves with the masses in their struggles, and in the course of our struggle develop, together with them, the peoples´s culture based on concrete realities. ◆ Let us organize among the masses. It is good that we develop our various progressive, anti-imperialist and democratic guilds among literary and artistic crafts or professions. But these should not result in small and exclusivist (because self-limiting and in-bred) groups. Rather, let us must find various ways of embedding ourselves, individually or as teams, within workers’ unions, peasant associations, and other grassroots organizations of women, youth, children, LGBTQ, and other sectors, and in the process, find ways of developing anti-imperialist and democratic culture as a mass movement in a real sense, instead of being the output of small and scattered collectives of writers and artists. ◆ Lastly, let us all contribute our utmost to a unified cultural offensive of the people against imperialism, aware that the overwhelming dominance of imperialism necessitates strong organizations with strong leaderships guided by the ideology, politics and methods of a party of the most advanced and most productive class in our society today. Especially in this age of the internet and multimedia, let us also help build powerful counter-media—powerful in that they are able to support the people’s struggles and effectively amplify the people’s voice, and in turn find resonance in and draw the concrete support from the masses in their millions. It is not enough for us to compete with the imperialists in such superficial terms such as trending hashtags, viral Youtube views, and TV ratings. More important to us are the long-term results, as measured in the sustained growth by leaps and bounds of the anti-imperialist mass organizations and mass movement at the national level and on an international scale. Let us help build many channels, going in one general direction. At this point, one apt analogy is that of the people’s struggles as many small rivulets eventually conjoining into one endless current of strength to swamp the cultural strongholds of the enemy. The essential task of progressive and revolutionary forces all over the world today is developing unity, cooperation and coordination of all peoples and raising the level of struggle against imperialism and reaction, in particular against imperialist plunder and war led by US imperialism the No.1 terrorist power.###
65
66
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
Philosophy of the masses: The contemporary role of philosophy in the Philippines Regletto Aldrich Imbong Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
67
68
Philosophy of the masses: The contemporary role of philosophy in the Philippines Regletto Aldrich Imbong
Alain Badiou discusses that Philosophy is a result of four nonphilosophical conditions: science, politics, art and love (Badiou, 2012, p. 2-3; Badiou, 2008). Philosophy is seen as a discourse whose being wholly depends upon particular scientific, political, artistic and amorous events that orient thought towards the New. Philosophy ventures from the different novelties discovered and instituted within these different conditions. Badiou cites specific examples wherein science conditioned some of the major philosophical thought known to humanity: mathematics in the case of Plato, Descartes and Leibniz, Physics for Kant Whitehead and Popper, History for Hegel and Marx, and Biology for Nietzsche, Bergson and Deleuze (2012, p. 2). In Badiou’s own case, the consequences of French activism during 1968 largely conditioned his own philosophy (Lotta et al, 2009; McGowan, 2010, p. 9). Thus, it can be concluded that a solid foundation for philosophy is the activity of these four nonphilosophical conditions. In this paper, the researcher will focus on two of the four conditions that Badiou identifies and will establish the relationship between the two conditions and the state of philosophizing practices in the Philippines. This paper answers three specific questions. First, what is the status of science in the Philippines and how does this affect philosophy? Second, can local politics condition philosophizing in the Philippines? Third, what political tradition in the Philippines suits the Universalist categories of philosophy? Lastly, what should be Philosophy’s nature in the Philippines based on the statuses of these two conditions? The paper will be divided into five parts. After the introduction, the researcher will give a brief evaluation of the status of science in the Philippines. Next is a discussion of Badiou’s politics of emancipation as the bearer of the New. This will be followed by how the genuine Left movement participates in the type of politics expounded by Badiou. The last part is a recommendation as to what the nature of philosophy in the Philippines must necessarily be in response to the scientific and political conditions of the time. Science, Philippine Society and Philosophy The progress of science and technology is crucial to the survival and development of any society. At stake in this scientific progress is the betterment of life (both biological and social) in general and the economy in particular. It is safe to say that countries which have experienced scientific progress are also the countries that have national industries that sustain an independent and progressive economy. 69
Parallel to this material or economic progress that science brings is the development of thought within the specific society. Scientific progress aids in both the material and formal development of any society and hence it is necessary to place great importance upon it. As Bruce Alberts (2010) opines, “over the long run, any nation that makes crucial decisions while ignoring science is doomed.”
In the Philippines, science remains poor and laggard. This state of science can be explained by citing some indicators which the Philippines falls short of achieving. Posadas (2009) cites five of the most important international indicators that objectively measure science and technology capability of a country. His work elaborates on how science and technology in the Philippines fails to meet these international indicators. The first three indicators are called input indicators, and the last two output indicators (p. 134). The researcher will focus on the first two input indicators as these are government-aided conditions and the researcher contends that the government is the primary entity decisive in promoting the advancement of science. The first indicator is “the country’s number of full-time (FTE) researchers per million population.” Posadas cites UNESCO, which claims that the Philippines only has 81 FTE per million of its population, a number way below the target of 380 for developing countries like the Philippines. It is also noted in the study that, despite the increase in population in the country, the number of FTEs hardly increased and even dropped within the period from 1995-2005 (Posadas 2009, p. 134). This deplorable condition is affirmed by a more recent statement by Sen. Ralph Recto who revealed that there are only 78 FTE per million Filipinos (Usman, 2014). The second indicator is “the gross expenditures on R&D (GERD) as a percentage of GDP.” Citing UNESCO again, Posadas exposes that the Philippines failed to meet the UN benchmark of 0.5 percent of GDP for GERD as it only allocated 0.12 percent (2009, p. 134). In relation to this insufficient state subsidy for science and technology, progressive Filipino scientists also revealed that the 2014 budget for the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) was only 0.53 percent of the total budget (Salamat, 2013). This is far below par with the mandates of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which asks countries to allocate 2.25 percent of the annual budget for science and technology.
Philippine technological capability is further crippled as a result of an economic ideology guided by a market-pull approach which essentially is restrictive of technological progress in developing countries. According to Posadas, the market-pull approach is guided by two neoliberal agenda. First is “the Principle of Comparative Advantage, which holds that a firm, industry, or country should specialize on production technologies and systems that can make maximum use of its current endowments or its comparative advantage.” Second is “neoliberalism or the Washington Consensus, which calls for free trade, free enterprise, free markets, FDI liberalization, deregulation, privatization, and minimal government intervention in the market” (2009, p. 143). These agenda have serious implications and consequences on our nation’s technological and industrial development as we are now restricted from developing our technological capacities and tied to remain dependent on imported machineries and technologies. In contrast with the import70
oriented agenda of the Philippines, industrializing countries like South Korea, Taiwan and China “deliberately defied the principles of comparative advantage to create globally competitive industries...” (Posadas, 2009, p. 144). For Posadas, this leads to a vicious cycle of science and technology underdevelopment and dependence, a problem that haunts and continues to persist in the Philippines.
This problematic condition of science in the Philippines produces two consequences. On the one hand is the absence of a strong national industry anchored on the proper and effective utilization of its agrarian sector. On the other hand — and this is of more interest to philosophy — is the lack of active conditions for the prospering of philosophy. Because of the latter, philosophy in the Philippines falls short of finding a scientific condition for the emergence of discourses on par with those of Plato, Leibniz, Nietzsche and Marx. Badiou (2012) explicitly points out that “the future of philosophy depends on its capacity for progressive adaptation to the changing of its conditions” (p. 3) and this is precisely why the philosopher describes philosophy and philosophizing as an aftermath — it captures the truths that burst out from scientific, political, artistic and amorous novelties. Philosophy is because of the New. Thus, philosophy’s relationship with social conditions is one of seizure (Badiou, 2008, p.13; Badiou, 2005b, p. 52-53). Philosophy establishes its place by borrowing the truths produced, say, from a scientific novelty. Inversely, the lack of any scientific progress endangers philosophy and philosophizing. Philosophy could not establish itself as a place of thought if scientific thought itself fails to provide truth(s) for philosophy. There is, in the Philippine context, nothing scientifically New yet. But does this spell the demise if not impossibility of philosophy in the Philippines? Philosophy could not yet rely on the state of science here in the Philippines, but this does not mean philosophy’s defeat. Philosophy must never take the defeatist stand that simply envisions its own end. On the contrary, philosophy must take further steps (Badiou, 1999, p.32). In the absence of scientific activity, philosophy in the Philippines must orient itself towards a more active condition that can nevertheless envision the New: politics. Emancipation Politics and the New The authenticity of a political sequence is measured by its fidelity to the construction of the New, of that which is not in the order of the Old and hence establishes itself as a force that negates that which is. This essentially is a politics of emancipation and it “draws itself from the void that an event brings forth as the latent inconsistency of the given world” (Badiou, 2008, p 152).
Emancipation politics is conditioned by an Event. An Event is an indiscernible point in a given situation which marks the point of excess that defies the very limits set by that situation (McGowan, 2010, p. 9). It is a singularity that ruptures the situation and orients practice and thought towards the New. The situation is always characterized by that which is: the normal, stable, and natural. Being is that which is 71
natural and that-which-is-not-being is the non-natural (Badiou, 2005a, p. 173). And since the Event is that-which-is-not-being (Badiou, 199, p. 105), Being prohibits the Event (Ibid., p. 184-190). The Natural will not give way to the Historical. Expressed in more political terms, the State is hell-bent in preserving that which is and represses any attempt or even the mere envisioning of the New. It is important to emphasize that the State determines that which is normal, stable and natural, and this is done primarily through the laws, courts, prisons, the police and media. But since an Event is the other-than-being and every genuine political sequence is conditioned by it, emancipation politics is a sequence of the abnormal, the unstable, the antinatural (Badiou, 2005a, p.174) — a force that contradicts the being of the situation sanctified by the State. It is a movement which breaks away from the logic and law of the State and “prescribes a measure to the measurelessness of the State through the suddenly emergent materiality of a universalizable collective (Badiou, 2005b, 146-147).”
Since Being prohibits the Event, an illegal choice necessary for the procedure of the New must be made. It is in this regard that the intervention of a political subject faithful to the Event must proceed (Badiou, 2005b, p. 202-211). Point by point, a political subject organizes the New even while being immersed in the Old order. Naturally, the state becomes repressive if not violent as an alien language, thought and politics is introduced to it. Weber asserts a solid point in saying that only the State has the monopoly of the use of legitimate violence or force. Quoting Trotsky, Weber reiterates that “every state is based on force” (2004, p. 33). Hence, as Lenin (1974) opined, the State must utilize all the coercive apparatuses for normality and stability to be (p. 393-396). It is in this regard that the Evental rupture has a violent quality (McGowan, 2010, p. 8) since the State, as the State of the ruling class (Badiou, 2005a, p. 105), is determined to use force against any Evental or historical rupture. Emancipation politics is a violent rupture of a collective determined to organize the New. The collective is the truth of politics (Badiou, 2005b, p. 97). Historical novelties happen not by a powerful persuasive language of an individual, nor by a divine intervention of the One, but by the organized, disciplined and militant action of the collective. In relation to Philippine history, Constantino (1975) reminds us that the radical Newness brought about by the 1896 Revolution was not a product of a single powerful individual persuading the Spanish state but by the collective force of the masses organizing the New (p. 167-168). Politics bears with it a truth and it is the truth of the collective presenting itself as the makers of history, the bearers of the New. It is in this context that Badiou contends that politics is rare since a collective organizing the New only shines at the rarest moments of history.
The collective, determined to organize the New, places equality as its axiom (Badiou, 2005b, p. 99). The State, as constituted by the effective placement of classes, is the negation to the maxim of equality; in fact, the State favors the notion of freedom rather over and above that of equality. Hence, the State reaches its epitome through the establishment of the bourgeois State whose dynamics revolve around the effective employment of the notion of liberty: free trade, free competition, liberalization, freedom to amass surplus labor and profit, etc. The collective on the 72
other hand, guided by the general will, recognizes that equality is far more important than liberty (Rousseau,1994 p. 86-87; Badiou, 2012, p. 31; Badiou, 2005b, 97) as particular interests must give way to the collective and universal interests.
What this discourse on emancipation politics so far revealed is politics’ capacity to touch onto truth: a category which philosophy preoccupies itself with. Here is an affirmative political position that contradicts the vulgar bourgeois rhetorical claim that linguistic differences and opinions, rather than truth, command the operation of a politics. On the contrary, emancipation politics recognizes that politics is always a contradiction and the truth of this contradiction is that it commands difference and not the other way around (Badiou, 2009, p. 10). Difference, politically expressed in the struggle of and among classes, is the condition of the State. What this implies is the State’s incapacity to discern and organize something which has a universal value since it is always the state of the ruling particular class. Something is only in the order of universality if it goes “beyond established differences” and “that these differences become indifferent (Badiou, n.d.). In placing primacy on universality and equality, emancipation politics organizes a political truth whose centrality is “the disappearance of the space of the placement of classes” (Badiou, 2009, p. 7), i.e., the State. Lenin (1964) famously described this as the abolition and withering away of the state , (p. 400). In this way, emancipation politics becomes compatible with philosophy when the former obeys “the philosophical principle of the subordination of the variety of opinions to the universality of truth (Badiou, 2012, p. 29).”
Badiou explains that “a politics touches on truth provided that it is founded upon the egalitarian principle of a capacity to discern the just, or the good…” (2005b, p. 98). The classical name for this is justice. Justice, far from respecting and preserving differences and particularities, is the examination “of any situation from the point of view of an egalitarian norm vindicated as universal” (Badiou, 2012, p. 29). The truth of politics is the truth of the collective protractedly organizing the New whose norm and axiom is equality and universality. The category of the universal is not new, as it has already been expounded by the Greek thinkers. To distinguish and clarify this Badiouian concept of universality from that of the classical philosophers’ conception, Badiou clarifies that his ...conception is...a creative one. Universalism is always the result of a great process that opens with an event. To create something universal is to go beyond evident differences and separations. This is, in my conviction, the great difference between my conception of universality... and some traditional conceptions of universality. It is also the difference between a grammatical conception of truth and my conception of truth as a creation, a process, an event.
73
The Radical Philippine Left as the Bearer of the New The fundamental difference between science and politics in the Philippines can be seen in their respective degrees of activity and influence to society. Within the period from the 1860s to the present, scientific advancements, if any, have not so far made a radical push of Philippine society toward the New as compared to politics. It is on this general note that the researcher argues that politics is a better condition for philosophizing in the Philippines because, in the rarest periods of our history, politics had borne the New. But the political landscape of the Philippines is broad and hence, this paper, guided by Badiouian emancipation politics, singles out a particular political movement which, tested by the harshness and brutality of the State, is unwaveringly determined to organize the New: the radical Left movement. It needs to be reiterated that the radical Philippine Left (RPL) movement today is a resumption and continuation of the unfinished 1896 Revolution (Sison, 1964). Both trace their roots to a single political event: the Cry of Pugadlawin. What essentially binds the two together is their determined stand to end foreign rule and to establish a genuinely independent society. However, learning from the 1896 EDSA Revolution’s lack of a strong ideological, political and organizational framework, and from the RPL’s major ideological, political and organizational errors for which it had to undergo two great rectification movements, the current RPL believes that it has assumed a better standpoint, viewpoint and method in waging prolonged political struggle.
Essentially, the RPL’s politics ruptures the established dominant order. It is sharp in analyzing Philippine society to be semi-colonial and semi-feudal, brought about by the symbiotic relationship of the three basic problems of US Imperialism, Feudalism and Bureaucrat Capitalism (Guerrero, 2005, p. 63-65; see also Sison, 2009, p. 26-28). It acknowledges that the symbolic expression of Philippine society is the social pyramid in which the top 1% comprised of the landed and big bourgeois classes dominate and exploit the base 99% comprised of the diverse classes of the middle and petty bourgeoisie, the workers, and the peasants (Guerrero, 2005, p. 132-152). Guided by an ideology tested by social practice, the RPL recognizes that the state is but an entity ready to defend the interests of the ruling class through the use of coercive state apparatuses and therefore resolves that the primary means to rupture the state is by creating an army “capable of serving the exploited instead of the exploiters” (Lenin, 1964, p. 393, 395) while at the same time maximizing the democratic spaces and institutions set forth by the dominant order (Sison, 2009, p. 36-37). For more than four decades of both armed and unarmed resistance, the RPL has steadfastly committed itself to this noble cause, accumulating more strength than ever before and now ready to step into a new stage of political struggle (CPP Central Committee, 2014).
The RPL protractedly organizes the New even while the Old remains dominantly powerful. As Guerrero (2005) remarks, “in advancing towards the people’s democratic state system, revolutionary bases must be developed in order to establish the independent regime even while the comprador-landlord-bureaucrat 74
state has not yet been completely overthrown in the country” (p. 162). In this way, wave by wave, a New system based on equality is practiced in the archipelago. Equality, then, can and must be understood as a notion that remains indiscernible within the Old comprador-landlord-bureaucrat dictatorship but which continues to be the maxim of thought and action of the united front of peasants, workers, professionals, local entrepreneurs, etc. — the political collective whose interests, far from serving foreign and local oligarchic powers, are consistent with and serve the general will. Philosophy and the Radical Philippine Left Having laid down the current conditions of the emancipation politics organized by the RPL, the researcher shall present three points relative to the question of philosophy’s role and mission in the Philippines today. First, philosophy must integrate the radical struggle of the RPL. This means breaking down the confines set by the often conservative University and the paralyzing atmosphere of coffee shops and other bourgeois spheres of intellectual practices, so that philosophizing be done at the grassroots level: the struggling masses. The degree of integration may vary as political consciousnesses also differ. But what ties these involvements together is the unity of discourses that are critical against the dominant order that favours partiality rather than universality and equality through the effective employment of classes. Second, while integrating the material conditions of existence, philosophy cannot stop being an abstract speculative practice, yet at the same time, philosopizing in the Philippines becomes more substantial if thoughts are loaded with the most revolutionary content, and more systematic if philosophical reflections are guided with emancipating categories. Integrating with the movement that bears the New, a whole new discourse capable of articulating the New becomes possible. After all, “philosophy is the act of reorganizing all the theoretical and practical experiments by proposing a great new normative division, which inverts an established intellectual order and promotes new values beyond the commonly accepted ones” (Badiou, 2012, p. 13). Lastly, philosophy must spring from immersive ventures with the masses and the radical movement to test the validity of its own discourses, while assuming a self-critical stance in order to rectify its discourse and attune it to the changing conditions. From these three points, philosophizing in the Philippines must be guided by the dialectics of integration, articulation and praxis, at the service of the struggling masses and the movement of the New.
75
Bibliography:
Alberts, Bruce. “Policy-making needs science.” Science. (3 Decemeber 2010): Journal Online. Available from https://www.sciencemag.org/ content/330/6009/1287.summary?related- urls=yes&legid=sci;330/6009/12 87.
Badiou, Alain. “An interview with Alain Badiou: Universal truths and the question of religion.” Journal of philosophy and scripture. (n.d): Journal Online. Available from http://www.philosophyandscripture.org/Issue3-1/Badiou/Badiou.html. ___________. Being and event. Trans. Oliver Feltham. New York: Continuum, 2005a. ___________. Conditions. Trans. Steven Corcoran. New York: Continuum, 2008.
___________. Manifesto for philosophy. Trans. Norman Madarsz. New York: SUNY Press, 1999. ___________. Metapolitics. Trans. Jason Barker. New York: Verso, 2005b.
___________. Philosophy for militants. Trans. Bruno Bosteels. New York: Verso, 2012.
___________. Theory of the subject. Trans. Bruno Bosteels. New York: Coninuum, 2009. Constantino, Renato. The Philippines: A past revisited. Manila: n.p., 1975.
Communist Party of the Philippines-Central Committee. “The tide of revolution rises in the Philippines as the chronic crisis of the ruling system worsens.” Ang Bayan. (26 December 2014): Article Online. Available from http:// philippinerevolution.net/publications/ang_bayan/archives/2014/original/ 20141226en.pd f?1419839270.
Guerrero, Amado. Philippine society and revolution. Manila: Aklat ng Bayan, 2005.
Lenin, Vladimir. “State and revolution.” V.I. Lenin: Collected works. Trans. Stepan Apresyan & Jim Riordan. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964.
Lotta, Raymond, Nayi Duniya and K. J. A. “Alain Badiou’s ‘politics of emancipation’: A communism locked within the confines of the bourgeois world. Demarcations: A journal of communist theory and polemic. (Summer-Fall 2009): Journal Online. Available from http://demarcations-journal.org/ issue01/demarcations_badiou.html. 05 May 2015. McGowan, Todd. “Subject of the event, subject of the act: The difference between Badiou’s and Zizek’s systems of philosophy. Subjectivity. 3-1 (2010): 7-30.
Posadas, Roger. “Scientific and technological capabilities and economic catch-up.” Philippine Management Review. 16 (2009): 131-153. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on political economy and the social contract. 76
Trans. Christopher Betts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Salamat, Marya. “Why not prioritize science and tech in 2014 budget, progressive scientists ask.” Bulatlat: Journalism for the people. (12 August 2013): News Online. Available from http://bulatlat.com/main/2013/08/12/why-notprioritize-science-tech-in-2014-budget- progressive-scientists-ask/. Sison, Jose Maria. “Kabataang makabayan founding speech.” Struggle for National Democracy. Article Online. Available from http://cnsupdiliman.weebly.com/ uploads/4/7/1/0/4710922/stuggle_for_national_democracy_t hird_ed_-_book.pdf. ___________. “On the combination of legal and illegal forms of struggle.” For democracy and socialism against imperialist globalization. Manila: Aklat ng Bayan, 2009. ___________. “The protracted people’s war and diplomacy.” For democracy and socialism against imperialist globalization. Manila: Aklat ng Bayan, 2009. Usman, Edd. “Recto decries lack of S&T researchers.” Manila Bulletin. (July 26, 2014). News Online. Available from http://www.mb.com.ph/recto-decries-lack-ofst-researchers/. 06 May 2015. Weber, Max. The Vocation Lectures: Science as a Vocation, Politics as a Vocation. Translated by Rodney Livingstone. Edited by David Owen and Tracy Strong. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2004.
77
78
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
A Critique of the Proposed Amendments in the Philippine Constitution Edberto M. Villegas Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
79
80
A Critique of the Proposed Amendments in the Philippine Constitution Edberto M. Villegas Some of our politicians are at their old game again, attempting to amend certain sections of the Constitution, specifically its economic provisions in Article 12. To accomplish this, they are resorting to the easier approach of a congressional initiative, which requires ¾ vote of Congress for any charter change which would then be presented to the people in a plebiscite for approval , instead of calling for a constitutional convention that may include the election of non-politicians. These politicians claim that it is the economic sections in the Constitution that they are interested in, but some sectors are suspicious that this is a just a clever maneuver to change the political system of the Philippines, as provided for in the Constitution. In fact, the Belmonte bill to amend the constitution also includes changes in the ownerships of educational institutions and in media and advertising as contained in Sec. 4 and 12 of Article 14 on education and in Sec. 11(1 and 2), Art. 16 on media and advertising. Though this latest attempt to foist their agenda on the Filipino people did not succeed with the adjourning of the lower house of Congress last June 8, without debating on the proposed amendments of the Constitution, it is important to make the Filipino people aware of what some of our legislators are up to, in connivance with some business interests, particularly foreign. They plan to revive their attempt to tinker with the Constitution when Congress goes on session again. The Belmonte bill or Resolution No. RB 10001
The proposed House bill with Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. its main sponsor seeks to add the phrase “unless provided by law” to lift constitutional restrictions on the participation of foreigners in the following economic domains as stated in the 1987 Constitution : Sec. 2, Article 12, on exploration, development and utilization of natural resources; Sec. 3, Art. 12, on the acquisition of lands of the public domain, including agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national park; Sec. 7, Art 12, on conveyance or transfer of private lands; Sec. 10, Art. 12, on investment in business undertakings, and; Sec. 11, Art. 12, on grant of franchise, certificates or any other forms of authorization for the operation of public utilities. The proposed bill will remove the prohibition for foreigners to own lands both in the public and private domains and allow them to participate in business activities in the Philippines up to 100% ownership from the present 30% to 40% restrictions. The 1987 Constitution states that all public lands cannot be alienated (transfer the possession of to some individuals or groups), except agricultural, and the latter are reserved for Filipino citizens, for instance, acquiring parcels of public lands under the land reform program. Foreigners are likewise excluded from owning private lands and these cannot be conveyed or transferred to them (Sec. 7, Art. 12) even through inheritance, 81
for example, if a person acquired foreign citizenship even though his parents are Filipinos. The Belmonte bill would open the door for 100% ownership of lands, both public and private, to foreign nationals. This would then allow them to exploit the abundant natural resources of the Philippines (one of the richest in the world, according to the World Bank, for example, the Philippines is no. 3 in gold deposits globally, 4th for copper deposits and 5th for nickel). In Southeast Asia, the Philippines have the greatest number of proven deposits of metallic and non-metallic minerals both on land and in the sea, the latter craves for by an aggressive China. The right of foreigners to extract our country’s natural wealth, if the constitutional amendments were approved, would go beyond those provided by the Mining Act of 1995, which has been suspended regarding the giving of new mining permits due to the wanton abuses of some foreign companies in exploiting the natural resources of our country, destroying the environment in the process(of course, it is not their land). In this regard, a team of Filipino scientists and engineers led by Dr. Herman D. Mendoza from the Department of Mining, Metallurgy and Materials of the University of the Philippines (UP) have developed a technology to extract gold at the same time copper from ores twice as much as our small-scale miners can do. And the method is also environment-friendly which even surpassed European standards. And they did in on a meagre grant of less than P30 million from the DOST, the first project that this agency has extended to the state university after a hiatus of 20 years. Other Social Consequences of Foreigners Owning Lands in the Philippines
Through buying lands, foreigners can engage in land speculation, which was the immediate cause of the 2008 stock market crash in the United States, sparked by unbridled speculative activities in land value, creating a financial bubble that eventually burst. At present, the US economy has not fully recovered from the 2008 financial crisis. If such an event happens in the Philippines, it would be more devastating for a weak economy like ours, which heavily depends on external funding. Allowing foreigners to own lands will also pose a threat to our national security. The weak Philippine government may lost control of its national territories with private corporations and individuals going into a selling spree to gain high profits from land-hungry foreigners. How could it be prevented then if some unscrupulous groups (even sanctioned by a government, most probably the US or China) would build secret bases on their acquired lands and prohibit trespassers from sticking their noses into what they consider their private properties? It is for this primary reason that Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia (nearer to our shores and also developing countries) and Mexico prohibit foreigners from owning lands in their territories. Other social consequences with foreigners being allowed to own lands in the country, including agricultural, would be its adverse impact on local food production and the disruption of the cultures of indigenous peoples. This is because foreign interests may convert agricultural lands to subdivisions, build condos, hotels, malls, golf courses on them to jack up their values, displacing inhabitants on these lands, most probably, farmers. As it is now, many agricultural lands have been converted into subdivisions and industrial estates by their owners to evade land reform and 82
this phenomenon may get worse if the prohibition for foreigners to own land in the Philippines were removed in the constitution. In some states in the US and Canada, which allow foreign ownership of lands as the economies of these countries are securely in the hands of their nationals compared to Third World countries, farm lands cannot be bought by foreigners. (Hodgson, et. al, FAO Legal Papers, Dec. 1999) The way of life of indigenous peoples occupying lands sold to foreigners will also be disrupted as the provision on the right to ancestral domain provided in Art. 12 will also be amended. Foreign Participation in Local Business
Sections 10 and 12 in Article 12(or On the National Economy and Patrimony) will likewise be amended to invite 100% foreign participation in business undertakings in the Philippines, beyond the present 40% limit.( It is to be noted that Vietnam only allows 15% foreign shares in any business endeavor in this country.) As it is now, the 40% restriction for foreign shares in local companies has been easily skirted around by Congress, which allows Nestle Phil and Coca Cola, Phil.., for example, to have 100% foreign ownership. What foreign lobbyists in Congress want is to eliminate all together the provision of 40% ownership of economic establishments, including in the grant of franchise to public utilities, so that they will not be pestered anymore by any possible petitions in our courts by concerned Filipino citizens worried about foreigners taking full control of a local business activity. With the removal of the restriction of 40% ownership of business entities, foreign nationals, particularly from the US, could further entrench their hold on our local economy. Since our colonial period under the US and up to the grant of Parity Rights to Americans which ended in 1974, US transnational corporations have tightened their grip on our economy. At present, US companies are dominant in manufacturing and the service sectors, either through special exemptions from the 40% restriction or through joint-venture agreements and the grant of franchises, like, for instance, Benguet Corporation, the largest gold mining company in Asia, Caltex, Shell(in partnership with Dutch interest), Pure Foods(under the franchise of Hormel, USA), Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola, Macdonald(franchise held by George Yang), Wendy’s, KFC, Intel, AMD telecommunication equipment, Walmart, Procter and Gamble, Franklin Baker Co.(engaged in coconut refining), Del Monte, Ford, CNN, etc., etc. The US economic presence is followed by the Japanese, the latter mostly in car assembly, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and in home appliances, Sony, Hitachi, Panasonic, etc. The Japanese big firms or kigyo-shudans have come in droves to the Philippines ever since the Marcos regime ratified the Philippine-Japan Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation in 1974. The US and Japan likewise control the export business in the Philippines in electronic materials, located in our so-called free trade zones and which produce micro-chips and other parts of telecommunication equipment. The Philippine government boasts of a high export earnings of IT equipment, our no. 1 export product, but the enterprises churning out these materials are foreign companies, some of them 100% owned by them. The irony is that the inputs for these export products are mostly imported, that is the export activities of foreign firms have not much backward linkages to our domestic economy. Further, opening our door wider to foreign investment may just entice more short-term portfolio or speculative investment (otherwise known as “hot money”) 83
to come into the Philippines. At present, 50% or more of foreign investment in the country are portfolio, which can be withdrawn at the whim of the investors who are scouring around the world for quick and high profits from earnings in stocks, bonds, and other forms of securities. A sudden withdrawal of “hot money” can cause a hemorrhage in the financial system of the host country like what transpired in 2013 and 2014 when $441.56 million and $2.051 billion, respectively, were suddenly divested from the Philippine money market, most of them going back to the US.(BSP) This is also what happened during the 1997 Asian financial crisis (sparked by massive land speculation in Thailand), when $7 billion were withdrawn in July 1997 from the Philippines leading to the closures of many firms, mostly SMEs, laying off 120, 673 workers. (DOLE, 1998) Portfolio investment is the favorite tool of big time speculators like the American billionaire George Sorros of the Sorros Fund Management in playing with the economies of nations to make tremendous profits specially through short-selling in the stock market. (Sorros was accused by then Malaysian prime minister Mohamad Mahathir of causing economic havoc in his country through speculative investment during the Asian 1997 financial crisis.) Thus, trusting on portfolio investment, specially if it is unregulated, is a very risky way to goad GNP growth as it is done by the Philippine government Employment in SMEs and micro enterprises compared to the large firms
Some quarters claim that with more foreign investment, which to them will increase if the 40% restriction were removed, flowing into the Philippines, the persistent unemployment problem of the Philippines(25 to 30% of the labor force from 2002-2012 based on National Statistics Office, NSO, data) will be significantly reduced. It is to be reminded these champions of foreign investments that foreign firms, mostly concentrated in manufacturing and in services, which are in the category of “large firms” based on NSO statistics, only employ at most 8% of the labor force of the Philippines. Most of the employed are in the micro and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), mostly owned by Filipinos, which absorb 65% on the average of local employment, for instance, from the period 1995 to 2009. (Aldaba, PIDS, April, 2011) The remaining 35% were employed in the large firms but not all of them are fully-owned by or are joint-ventures or have franchises with foreigners.α The sad part is that the micro and SMEs experienced great difficulties in obtaining loans from local banks and government sources due to lack of collaterals and inadequate capital. The big companies, on the other hand, easily obtain loans, sometimes even without any collateral as their business names are deemed sufficiently trustworthy. While it is true that in terms of value-added or productivity, it is the large firms that outdo the micro and SMEs in the manufacturing sector (77% vs. 23% from 1994 to 2006, Aldaba, Ibid.) , this is no reflection at all that the welfare of their workers are improving since a great portion of this valueadded accrues as profits and interests earned by the big firms. The large firms have higher productivity because of the use of more modern machineries and technology, α According to the Philippine National Statistics Office(NSO) definitions, a micro enterprise has 1-9 employees, a small enterprise has 10-99 employees, a medium enterprise has 100-199 employees and a large enterprise has 200 or more employees.
84
which however leads to the rationalization of work∂, reducing the number of workers in the firms. It is the large enterprises more than the SMEs that also resort to contractualization and sub-contracting to save on labor costs. Filipino workers in Metro Manila, where around 60% of the country’s labor force are located, receive a low $240 per month wage, compared to Indonesian workers, $253/mo., Thai $369/ mo. and Chinese, $403/mo.(Wallace, Inquirer, June 18, 2015). Some groups would even aim to control the rise of wages of Filipinos to attract more foreign investment. What can we say? Amidst all the foreign investment coming into the county, the Filipino people continue to remain in dire poverty. The Social Weather Station (SWS) has come out with its latest survey on the number of poor people in the Philippines in the first quarter of 2015 that shows that 51%(11.4 million) families rated themselves as poor. (SWS, Statistics for Advocacy) If we take the average size of the Filipino family placed at five, 11.4 million translate to 57 million people which is 55% of our total population of 103 million. Contrast this with government statistics which shows only 25.8% of Filipinos as living below the poverty line in 2014.(NSCB). In Indonesia , 12.4% of the population are deemed poor based on official statistics and in Thailand, it is 8.1%.(From Jakarta Post, Feb. 13, 2011 and Index, mundi. Internet). This is to remind the Aquino government that merely relying on GDP(gross domestic product) growth, based on value-added, which it boasts is the highest in Southeast Asia at 6%, is no assurance at all of the advance of the welfare of the Filipino masses. In fact, it only manifests that the rich are getting richer. The increasing number of street children roaming the streets of Metro Manila, amidst its posh malls and tall buildings, is a stark testimony that the development policies of our economic planners are not on the right road. Amendments on the Ownerships of Schools and in media and advertising
Now, let us turn to Sec. 4 and 12, Art. 14 and Sec. 11(1 and2) , Art. 16, which the Belmonte bill would want likewise to eliminate the restrictions on foreign investment. Sec. 4 and 12, Art. 14 , on Education, reserves the right to establish educational institutions to Filipino citizens, but the Belmonte bill will enable foreigners to put up their own schools in the country. Sec. 11(1 ) and (2) Art. 16, prohibits any foreign participation in the ownership and management in local media (yet there is CNN Philippines now) and allows only 30% foreign shares but not management in advertising. The Belmonte bill will remove these limitations and allow 100% foreign ownership and management both in media and advertising. Pray, what would happen to our educational system with the possibility of foreigners with their superior capital dominating it and making their own curricula? What would happen to our local media and advertising with foreigners, particularly American, dictating their tenor with their cultural biases? Soon, the colonial mentality of many Filipinos, specially among the higher and middle classes, may just be enhanced with all kinds of foreign habits and preferences disseminated in schools, the mass media and advertising, threatening the Filipino cultural identity, which is supposed to be ∂ “Rationalization of work” is of course from the perspective of the capitalist and is a misnomer from the point- of- view of the workers, because it leads on the other hand to their pauperization. 85
a task of the government to build. A result of all these possible onslaughts on our national identity(which is already weak as it is now) may be more and more Filipinos embarrassed to speak their own language and wanting to be artificially white in skin and their noses elongated in imitation of Westerners. Finally, we should take lesson from the Bedouin tale of the master and his camel. One freezing night, the camel requests its master if it could bring its nose inside the latter’s tent to which the master obliges. In the middle of the night, the master was awakened by the camel’s movement. The camel has inserted its head and long neck inside the tent, and seeing its master awake, asks further if it could place its forelegs inside as well. The master agreed to which the camel, summoning enough confidence, requests if it could just stand inside the tent. The master shifted his position to allow the camel to come inside, but because of the smallness of the tent was pushed outside. “It is freezing cold outside”, the master complains to which the camel replies “Sorry, there is no more room for you inside”. .
***
86
87
88
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
In the Defence of the Actuality of Communism: Why you shouldn’t be afraid of it Jasmine Ado Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
89
90
In the Defence of the Actuality of Communism: Why you shouldn’t be afraid of it Jasmin Ado “Communism is the solution of the riddle of history, and knows itself to be the solution” - Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844
Capitalism is indeed a difficult task to break out; we are confined in this market-and-state framework and there is no quick formula at hand indeed but to say that we should no longer challenge Capitalism because it evolves every now and then as it thrives in series of crises is the death of a discourse and is nothing but a mere naïve theory, it’s like you are saying that we should just simply let rape happen because we can’t struggle through it so we’ll just end up enjoying rape! Like the bible, it’s easy to cherry-pick in Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto and all other works of Karl Marx to have him misinterpreted that he is only enviously worshipping the bourgeoisie because they have all the wines and music and that the proletariats have none, that there is power in capitalism to break down and dissolve feudal, patriarchal or idyllic bonds and hierarchies, that all that is solid melts in to air, his discourses didn’t stopped in there, he never dreamed to be an oppressor someday, to tell that “Marx is actually praising capitalism” is a kind of Straw Man logical fallacy and I hope that he doesn’t roll in his grave every single time he is misinterpreted. Enough with this bull-crap bourgeois revisionism, All of the legacies of heroes/philosopherkings-who-did-not-come-to-be who have withered, fallen and sacrificed their lives for us with their philosophy then the dreams that they’ve dreamed of what they’ve envisioned in the future will be in vain, without their pain, death and sacrifice, all of us will have nothing. Capitalism only survives because we let it be and there’ll be only hell in Capitalism as long as we put monetization in the centre of our lives. It only dehumanizes and destroys humanity because it only alienates and estranges each and every one of us and even the capitalist themselves can’t escape from it. You only dare question the actuality of communism because you are afraid of its critical and historical slippages then you’ll dare tell us that we just have read too many Maoist and Leninist articles. When scientists fail from their experiments, they go back from their boards and look where they’ve gone wrong then try again and that would also apply to the likes of us sociologists. The “Great Leap Forward” is a failure? Then better make a “Better and Greater Leap Forward” Stupid. Never silence the dialogue between memory and history, between personal troubles and society’s issues, or is it because you are politically-obsolete and sheltered with your personal wealth of the “American Dream” and you are not used to facing a head-on violence from the fascist police with all their helmets, rattan sticks, rotten shields and bullet vests with fire trucks on the side while you’re unfaithful on the other side because 91
they only have nothing but themselves as the “wretched of the earth” and their fists? Is it because the modern concealed and structured violence that is comforting because you don’t get to see them at first sight? Is it because you see the proletarian power unethical and the social-policing and state-structured violence ethical? Is it because you are afraid of hurt, defeat and the ‘stigma’, the ‘deviance’ of what it is like to be an activist who is bravely fighting for their ideals? Is it because you are afraid that all of your efforts are just being wasted because you want quick results and not in an endless cycle of hope and disappointment? Is it because you only wanted a blindand-justified and subservient “normal” cerebral-wrecking, judgement-dimming life of an ass wiper that doesn’t want to get into trouble for your own damn good? Indeed, Capitalism must have gotten all of us insecure and heavily specialized expendables but you must really be a morally-bankrupt, metaphysically-backslidinga, pseudo-enlightened, damned life-hater with an un-aestheticized life, an untermensch that allows nothing to happen. Why are you so proud of your imbecility? The three quarters of humanity’s denied humanity and their unsatisfied needs does not simply go down the drain, the idea of communism is never passé for it is not the ideal which destiny will have to be adjusted by force; it is the only practical movement of all the common struggles of living labour in communitarian form to recuperate is expropriated capacities. Like Antigone, the very moment that you say “NO!” is the very day that you’ll die, you may say that she has only experienced life as a tragic heroine but in that way; she had faced and created an action against her attempt to the non-existence of the Big Other with her ignited great, divine spirit – indeed, fuelling the first pommel of fire, the first strum to the string ensembles of all desires and impulses of class struggles is never easy to start to exceed to the actuality of the destiny of the left. Antigone has suspended the rules that the government of Creon accepts as a “social reality”, she then drives the radical incompleteness of this reality. She accepted the double impossibility, whether it is to bury her brother or not, whether she breaks the rules or not, whether she lives or not. Although our empirical universe is incomplete, this does not mean that there is another alternative ‘true’ reality that sustains it. She has accepted that there is no other place, that there is no other place for home and comfort, only the Now, that the existence of the big other is only an illusion. The eternity descending in time kind of divine violence and thirst for proletarian victory, your death will never be in vain, she died a symbolic death for she was the first to attempt of overcoming the inconsistency and the incompleteness, the ontological destituteness of our universe. The true courage of an act is to accept the inexistence of no other place and no big other in order to attack the existing other. The truth cannot be faced by everyone for it is awfully ugly, the truth is not for the weak but it is capable to make us as stronger beings. The truth is we all want the same then we end up as nothing, you were only hindered and told by the norms to live in endless bondage of “life is your career” after you run into meritocratic diploma mills then dive into thoughtless consumption where things you own end up owning you. Then later on, you will create duplicates of your own trashed, crapped-up and sugar-coated miserable life 92
then tell them to follow your cowardly roots then die without scars and have nothing but a beautiful stock body without battle scars then I’d say “What a waste”. You will lay dying beside all the useless shit you’ve begged, bought and worked hard for all of your life as an attempt to impress the world. You will die without realizing your actual human potential and will to power; you will die a slave not knowing that you were. You will die without realizing that your loyalty to your employer is not because they love you but they only love you for your cheap and profitable labour-power for their own wider gains of profit margin. You will die not knowing you actually have chains like the rest of us. All that is dead rotten goes down the drain and the saddest thing is that you are going down alive; you will never realize that you were never alive, that history has no place for egocentric, self-absorbed and coward yuppies and millennials like you are who is passionate to imitate the leisure class. All of us are in chains, the only shame is not to break and lose it. We are supposed to be a class of strong and intellectual young men and women, we want to give our lives into something as most of us ended up going out for work, only for work and coming back home every single day confined and embracing complacency while chasing cars, clothes, condominiums and other shit that wed don’t need with our minimum wages with the jobs that we all equally hate. Inequality and oppression begins with mis-education, this is a structural violence that most of us with myopic eyes cannot see the great war of our generation. Supposedly, our lives should be better than this. We are not born in this world to wipe and lick the asses of the bourgeoisie, they are meant to be destroyed. The first step to emancipation is naming your enemy/ies; neo-liberalism, globalization has already penetrated our very selves, the very demons that we hate are now within ourselves, most of us chose not to fight it but there will always be an Antigone who would say “NO”. The goal of all revolutionary violence is not to take over state power but to transform it radically, change its functions and its relationships to its base. Capitalism gets more name-able every time you tell that it succeeds, we can get to name in its every new form to exploit us the proletariats, may it be mass contractualization, Business Processing Outsource, Cheap labour, Child labour, Human Trafficking. Whatever form may it be, may it be from pre or post-capitalism, Communism will still be the name of our emancipated future. Communism is a permanent contradiction and threat to Capitalism. The future lies in our collective political decision, die if you must stay in the middle because you want to be reassured whose cock is going to win. To side with the oppressors or to side with the oppressed, the actuality of communism and of our human becoming will only come to light if we have all finally realized that the lasting true power lies within ourselves, that the king’s clothes are non-existent, that he is actually naked; and not on the rules and laws that was created by the society to constrict our lives with all these rules and laws that we are forced to abide to. The bourgeoisie today has the power simply because we are stripped-bare, giving them too much of our own strengths and intellects, they are just dumb as shit because they can’t think of anything but themselves and their barbaric booty. 93
What about the trouble of the communist paradox? In order for the left to fully perform the act, they must overcome their melancholic attachment to their haunted historical past. To accept their past defeat, from their self-flagellations then see where they’ve gone wrong then gain the collective political action to fight again for conquest of changing the world away from capitalist oppression, the fight for equality, the un-alienation and emancipation of all men and proper distribution of wealth. Communism therefore is the act of all round collective self-emancipation by which a community, civil society, nation or international organization takes hold of its own destiny. If not now then when will we take the power back?
(Endnotes)
a Because Metaphysics are only for the people who can’t face the brutalities of life and can’t take revenge on their defeat.
94
95
96
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
Neo-liberal na Atake sa Mundo ng Paggawa at Panunupil sa Karapatan ng Manggagawa: Hamon at Paglaban Gerry Lanuza Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
97
98
Keynote Speech, CTUHR, 30th Anniversary, ika-9 ng Oktubre, 2014, SOLAIR, UP Diliman
Neo-liberal na Atake sa Mundo ng Paggawa at Panunupil sa Karapatan ng Manggagawa: Hamon at Paglaban Gerry Lanuza
Ang mga komunista ay hindi naglilihim ng kanilang mga paniniwala at layunin. Tahasan nilang ipinapahayag na ang kanilang pakay ay maaari lamang makamit sa pamamagitan ng marahas na pagwasak sa kasalukuyang lipunan. Hayaan nating manginig sa sindak ang mga naghaharing uri kapag narinig nila ang paghihimagsik ng mga komunista. Sa paghihimagsik, walang mawawala sa mga manggagawa kundi ang kanilang pagkagapos. Dahil para sa kanila ang daigdig. Mga mangagawa sa iba’t ibang panig ng daigdig, magkaisa. Sinulat ito ni Marx at Engels noong 1848! At ngayon, makaraan ang halos isang siglo at animnapu’t anim (166) na taon, marami nang mga nawalan ng pananampalataya sa sinabi ni Marx at Engels. Ang pamamayagpag ng monopolyo kapitalismo sa panahon ng globalisasyon, ay tila nagtutulak sa mga manggagawa na maniwalang wala nang bisa o lipas na ang mga pagsusuri ni Marx at Engels. Sabi pa ng iba, “panis” na. Ngunit para sa klasikong Marxismo, payak lamang ang paliwanag: sa patuloy na pamamayagpag ng kapitalismo sa daigdig, lalong maghihirap ang mga manggagawa, darami ang bilang ng manggaggawang walang hanap-buhay at sila ang mangunguna sa pagpapabagsak ng nabubulok na sistema ng kapitalismo. Ngunit sa kasalukuyan ay maraming mga intelektwal, sa loob at labas ng mga unibersidad, mga lider manggagawa, mga consultants na bayaran ng mga korporasyon, na naglalatag ng kakaibang pagsusuri at pagtingin sa patuloy na paghahari ng monopolyo kapitalismo sa buong daigdig. Ayon sa mga makabagong pagasusuri ng mga tinaguriang intelektwal, nag-iba na raw ang anyo ng kapitalismo sa daigdig. Lumiliit na raw ang bilang ng mga manggagawa at napapalitan ng mga tinagurian “knowledge workers”, na hindi raw kabilang sa tradisyunal na uring manggagawa. Dahil marami na raw ang mga “knowledge workers” at papakaunti na ang mga tunay na manggagawa, nagiiba na rin ang politika at larangan ng pakikibaka. Dahil mas malaki ang sahod at benepisyo nilang mga tinaguriang “knowledge workers” sa service sectors, hindi na raw dapat tignan ang tunggalian ng mga uri bilang pangunahing motor ng panlipunang pagbabago. Sa kasalukuyan, hindi na sila sumisigaw ng Uring Mangagagawa, Hukbong Mapagpalaya! Bagkos ang sigaw nila ay: “Pagkakapantay-pantay!” na walang ibig sabihin kundi ang pagkakapantay-pantay sa uri, kasarian, lahi, lipi, ng mga bakla, tomboy, at iba pang kasarian. Tila ang kalaban na ngayon ng mga manggagawa ay iba’t ibang uri ng kaapihan pero nakaligtaan na ang pagsasamantala sa loob ng kapitalismo. Wala namang masama sa paglaban sa lahat ng kaapihan--kasarian o 99
lahi man ito. Heto naman talaga ang layunin ng mga union at samahang manggagawa sabi ni Lenin. Ngunit ito ang pagbabalik ng ideyalismo sa ating panahon--Mga intelektwal na ayaw tawaging manggagawa, relatibong nakakaangat sa mga uring manggagawa dahil sila’y nasa loob ng malalamig na opisina. Sila ang mga taga-pagsalita ng Kapital gamit ang pilosopiyang ideyalismo na ibinaon na ni Marx at Engels noong kapanahunan panila. Dapat nating balikan at igiit ang materyalismo o ang siyentipikong pilosopiya na pagpapaliwanag sa kondisyon ng mga manggagawa, pati na ang mga pagbabagong nagaganap sa lipunan, batay sa materyal at pangekonomiyang kondisyon at pagbabago ng lipunan. Ang materyalistikong pagsusuri lamang ang maaaring makapagapaliwanag kung bakit ganito na magisip ang ating mga kaibigan sa Unibersidad, mga theologians, pilosopo, ekonomista, mga middle class, at mga nakaluklok sa burukrasya ng kapitalistang estado. Tignan natin ang datos. Sa buong mundo, ang labour force, mga aktibong nagtatrabaho, ay tinatayang nasa 2,369 million at ito ay halos 50 per cent ng kabuuang populasyon ng mundo. Kasabay ng paglago ng labor force ay ang paglobo rin ng income inequality lalo na sa mga “underclass” na makikita sa mga low-paid laborers, mga bata, matatanda, kababaihan, at mga racial minorities. Ang pagpasok ng mga kababaihan sa mga gawaing mababa ang sahod – tinatawag na feminization of the global workforce – ang kontraktwalisisasyon, at ang pagdami ng mga racial minorities sa mga trabahong mababa ang sahod ang siyang maigting na mga isyu sa pagpasok ng bagong milenyo. Ayon pa sa mga pag-aaral, sa nakalipas na 20 na taon, ang pagkakahati ng kita ng mga tao sa buong mundo ay nakatulong sa pagyaman ng mga dati nang mayayayman, habang ang sweldo at kalagayan ng mahihirap at mga panggitnang uri ay bumubulusok paibaba, kasama na rito ang mayayamang bansa tulad ng United States, Germany at China. Ayon sa pagaaral ng ILO, “Wage-led growth: An equitable strategy for economic recovery”, ito ay hindi lang dahil sa pagbabago ng teknolohiya. Sa pagtataya ng ILO aabot sa 1.1 billion katao ay maaaring walang hanap-buhay o kaya ay nakasadlak sa kahirapan. Malapit sa 30 per cent ng lahat ng mangaggawa sa buong mundo – mahigit sa 900 million – ay nabubuhay sampu ng kanilang pamilya sa mas mababa pa sa US$2 in 2011, o 55 million higit pa sa tinataya bago magkaroon ng krisis. Sa 900 million na mahihirap na mangagawa, mga kalahati nito ay nabubuhay sa US$1.25 kada araw. Kung susuriin ang mga datos at istadiskang ito, malalaman natin na ang mga propeta ng neoliberalismo na nangangaral ng ebanghelyo ayon sa monopolyo kapitalismo, bilang pinakamataas na yugto ng imperyalismo, ay nagkakalat lamang ng maling inpormasyon at kaalaman tungkol sa mga manggagawa. Una, hindi totoong nagbenepisyo ang manggagawa sa kontraktwasisasyon at “flexi time.” Ang kontraktwalisasyon ay bahagi lamang ng estratehiya ng neoliberalismo upang bawasan ang kita at benepisyo ng manggagawa habang pinayayaman nito ang mga nababangkaroteng korporasyon at mga banko. Ikalawa, hindi totoong yumayaman na ang mga panggitnang uri at ang mga mangagagwa ay masasaya na dahil sa mga gadgets at pagtaaas sa sahod. Sa isang survey na ginawa ng Gallup poll, na kinalap mula sa 140 bansa mula 2010-2011, 63 percent ng mga mangagawa sa buong daigdig ay hindi masaya sa kanilang hanap buhay o walang pagmamahal sa kanilang ginagawa “-disengaged—or simply unmotivated and unlikely to exert extra effort.” Ito ang alienation na tinukoy ni Marx--ang kawalan ang pagpapahalaga ng mga 100
manggagawa sa kanilang ginagawa. Ito ay dahil sa pagbabaklas ng ugnayan ng mga manggagawa sa kanilang kapangyarihang lumikha at ang pagtamasa sa produkto ng kanilang paggawa. Ang economic terrorism at pananabotahe sa mga unyon ay isa lang anyo ng pagdurog ng neoliberaismo sa patuloy na pag-aaklas ng mga manggagawa. Ang pagbaba ng bilang ng mga welga ng mga manggagawa ay hudyat ng pagkalusaw ng mga unyon. Sa nakalipas na 12 na taon, 26.7 percent ng mga manggagawa ay kasapi sa mga unyon. Sa panahon ni Pres. Aquino bumaba ang bilang nga organisadong unyon. At sa kasalukuyan ito ay nasa 8 percent na lamang, at 12 percent lamang ng mga manggagawang nasa unyon ang may collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Habang ang neoliberalismo ay patuloy sa pagpapasok ng kapital at pagtaguyod ng malayang merkado sa pamamagitan ng deregulisasyon, pribatisasyon, sa kumpas ng IMF-WB, WTO, APEC, at ang Transpacific Partnership, kung saan binabaklas ang mga serbisyong pangpubliko sa kalusugan at edukasyon, lalong naghihikahos ang mga manggagawa. Ang net worth naman ng 40 pinakamayamang Filipino ay lumobo ng apat na beses mula $16.4 B noong 2009 sa $64.4 B nitong 2013. Sabi pa ng Ibon ang pinagsamang yaman ng 40 pinakamayamang Filipino noong 2012 na umaabot sa $47.4 B ay 21 percent na ng GDP ng Pilipinas sa 2013. Ang Simbahan at ang Uring Manggagawa
Sa gitna ng kahirapang dinaranas ng mga manggagawa sa buong daigdig, kamangha-mangha na ang simbahang Katoliko mismo sa pangunguna ni Pope Francis ay sumigaw: “No to economy of exclusion.” Sabi ng Santo Papa sa kanyang Evangelii Gaudium (Joy of the Gospel): “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.” Ibinasura niya ang propaganda ng mga nagsusulong ng neoliberalismo sa trickle-down effect: “In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.” Ang epekto nito ayon sa kanya ay kultura ng walang pakialaman: “The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.” Ang neoliberalismo ay gumawa ng isang relihiyong sumasamba sa pera at merkadong walang pakialam sa kahirapan: “We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex32:1 -35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose.” Pinagsabihan niya ang mga bankero at mananalapi: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”. At tila ba na parang isang sosyalista, sabi ng Santo Papa: “As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems... Inequality is the root of social ills.” Hindi tayo dapat mamangha sa mga matatalim at maaanghang na pahayag na ito ng Simbahan dahil ang simbahan mismo ay napakahaba ng kanyang kasaysayan 101
sa pagtatanggol sa mga manggagawa mula pa sa Bibliya hanggang sa social encyclical na Rerum Novarum ni Pope Leo XIII. Tandaan natin na ang unang mga Kristyano ay mga rebolusyonaryo. Ang mga sinaunang Kristyano ay mga galing sa uring api, alipin, mga proletaryo, at mga maralitang lungsod. Sila’y pinaratangan na mga “atheists” dahil hindi sila sumamba sa Imperyalismo ng mga Romano. Tandaan din na ang tagapagtatag ng Kristyanismo na si Hesus ay kabilang sa pamilya ng uring manggagawa, at ang ama nya ay uring manggagawa. Si Hesus ay pumanig at namuhay kasama ang mga mangingisda, magsasaka, maghahayop, mangangaso at iba pang aping uri. Mas malalim pa rito ang ugnayan ng rebolusyonaryong simbahan at manggagawa. Dahil ang Diyos ng Kristyanismo ay mangagagawa. Ang paglikha sa daigdig ay isang uri ng paggawa. Ang Diyos mismo ay manggagawa. Kaya nga ito ang batayan ng dignity of labor! Sa tuwing tayo’y gumagawa, nagiging katuwang natin ang Diyos sa paggawa at paglikha. Kaya mas mahalaga ang paggawa kaysa kapital. Tayo ay ka-manggagawa ng Diyos! Sa aral at turo ng simbahan, “No one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself. Therefore, we firmly oppose organized efforts, such as those regrettably now seen in this country, to break existing unions and prevent workers from organizing. (Economic Justice for All, Catholic Bishops, No. 104). Kaya’t mahalaga na pagtibayin natin ang pagkakaisa, pag-oorganisa sa hanay ng mga manggagawa. Sa sama-samang pagkilos, pag-organisa, pag-aaral, at pakikibaka lamang maisusulong ang mga lehitimong karapatan ng mga manggagawa. Dapat nating labanan ang mga mapanghating pananaw na pinagbubukod-bukod ang mga aping sektor ng ating lipunan at pinagsasamantalahang uri. Kailangan nating makita na sa pagsasama-sama lamang, sa pagtingin lamang sa mga kaapihan bilang bahagi ng kapitalistang pagsasamantala, natin makikita ang pangangailangan ng universal emancipation. Dapat na mawasak natin ang paghiwa-hiwalay ng mga grupong pilit itinatangi at inihihiwalay ang kanilang opresyon laban sa iba pang aping uri. Ang union at samahan ng mga manggagawa ay hindi lamang taga-pagtala ng mga tinig ng mga aping uri. Sila ay mga tanggulan ng mga inaapi. Hindi kalianman mawawakasan ang pang aapi hanggat hindi napapalaya ang buong sangkatauhan. At hindi mapapalaya ang sangkatauhan kung hindi mapapalaya ang mga manggagawa. At hindi mapapalaya ng mga manggagawa ang kanilang uri nang hindi napapalaya ang iba pang uri laban sa pagsasamantala. Huwag tayong palinlang sa mga propetang nangangaral na ang neoliberalismo ay walang hanggan at walang katapusan. Ang mga uring manggagawa ang magwawakas sa monopolyo kapitalismo –dahil sila lamang ang may istorikong misyon na lagutin ang tanikala ng pangaabuso ng lahat ng uri! At ito ay nakatala sa Mission and Vision ng CTUHR, na ngayon ay nagdiriwang ng ika-30 ng aanibersaryo: “CTUHR’s purpose is to confront state and capitalist’s human rights violations not with an equally evil force but with an awareness that strength and emancipation lies in the hands of the workers’ themselves and in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed.” Maraming salamat at mabuhay ang mga uring manggagawa!
102
103
104
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and Anti-Imperialist Education
Literary Folio
Analekta at iba pang mga Tula ni E. San Juan, Jr.
Pingkian 4, No. 1 (2017)
105
LAMBAT NG BAHAG-HARI: Katumbalikan sa Teorya & Praktika A. PAIN Anak na di paluhain, ina’t asawa ang patatangisin--
Walang ligaya sa lupa na di dinilig ng balde-baldeng luha-Dagat binubuo ng patak ng tubig, bundok ng buto’t bungong maliliit-Maliit man daw ang sili may anghang na angking sarili--
Malaki man at buhanghang, daig ang munting aring siksikan-Munti ma’t matindi, daig ang nagmamalaki--
Mababaw man ang sugat, malalim ang ugat ng gurlis at pilat-Sugat na inilihim at tinakpan, gumaling ma’y balantukan--
Kung minsan ang awa ay nagiging iwa, pasaling ma’y humihiwa-Nasa tuldik ang awa, nasa lumagda ang gawa, siya nawa--
106
B. LANSI Hindi lahat ng batid o wani kailangang ipagsulit---
Walang humawak ng kalan o nanghimasok sa luto na di naulingan. Bawat palayok daw ay may kasukat na suklob, isinukat na tungtong. Sumala ang sandok sa palayok, gusing lihim ang nadukot.
Sala sa lamig, sala sa init, sa pagmumura nagkasala’y nahuhuli--
Walang masamang kanya, walang mabuti sa iba, pag-aayaw-ayawin pa ba? Malabis na pag-asa, laging pangangarap, dalamhati ang ibubunga. Batong-buhay ka man na sakdal tigas, unti-unting patak ng dura
tuloy maaagnas--
Biyayang apoy at habagat, batuta man ay pinalalambot. Humahabol ay nahuli sa unang humarurot sa pagsisisi.
Walang unang sisi sa huling pangyayari, mayroon sa unang pagkawili. Bakit ka pa magsisisi, gayong napariwara’t di na makangisi. 107
C. SILO
Kung mayroong itinanim, tila hindi tiyak na may aanihin--
Kapag may isinuksok sa dingding, kailangan pa bang tingalain? Kung hangin ang itinanim, baka tsunami ang aanihin--
Hanging pabula-bulangit, sandaling sakdal tuwid, kadalasa’y pilipit-Nagkamali ang hilot sa isinuksok, ay naku! sa puwit nadukot--
Ang sukli ng isang nasa kamao, higit sa ipinangakong dalawa o tatlo-Iba na ang isang hawak sa palad kaysa sandamakmak na lumilipad-Walang mailap na baboy-ramo sa matiyagang patay-gutom--
Iba ang pugong huli na kumpara sa sungayang dadakpin pa-Walang umani ng tuwa na di sa hinagpis naipunla--
Kung hiwaga ang itinanim, baka himala’t masungit na aswang ang anihin--
108
D. DAYA Kapag iniamba dapat na itaga, kapag itinaga, maipatataga-Ang anumang gawin, makapito mong isipin kung di ka pa nabigti-Kung magagawa at di gawin, di na magagawa kahiman ibigin--
Tikatik man kung panay ang ulan, nakapinid na pilik-mata’y mapapaapaw-Anumang gawang dinali-dali, malimit mangyari’y di mayayari’t tuloy lugi-Hanap lamang ay hamog, putragis, buong katawan sa tubig naanodKung di makipagsapalaran, di makatatawid sa magkaibayong karagatan-Kaya maligo ka sa linaw, kahit duling o bulag, sa labo magbanlaw-Kung ang hirap ay masasal na, bisperas na kaya ng ginhawa?
109
HIWAGA Ako’y may tapat na irog saanman paroo’y kasunod-sunod; Mapatubig ay di nalulunod, mapaapoy ay di nasusunog. Mayroon akong alipin, sunod nang sunod sa akin. Kung araw, yumao ka; kung gabi’y halika;
Sa araw ay nagtataboy, sa gabi ay nag-aampon. Laging nakasakay ngunit di nagpapasyal.
Lumalakad ang bangka, ang piloto ay nakahiga. Hindi hayop, hindi tao, walang gulong ay tumatakbo. Takbo roon, takbo rito, hindi makaalis sa tayong ito. Nang maalala’y naiwan, nadala nang malimutan. Pasurot-surot, dala-dala ay gapos.
Dalawang magkaibigan, unahan nang unahan.
Dalawang batong itim, malayo ang nararating. Maputing parang bulak, kalihim ko sa pagliyag.
110
HULA Nakatalikod na ang prinsesa, mukha niya’y nakaharap pa. Mukha ko’y totoong tinikin, ngunit busilak ang kalooban. Aling mabuting litrato, kuhang-kuha sa mukha mo.
Isang panyong parisukat, kung buksa’y nakakausap. Hindi pa natatalupan, nanganganinag na ang laman. Binuksan ang kanyon, perdigones ang nakabaon. Dalawang bolang sinulid, abot hanggang langit.
Kung manahi’y nagbabaging, dumudumi ng sinulid. Binili ko nang mahal, isinabit ko lamang. Mataas ay binitin, kaysa pinagbitinan. Pusong bibitin-bitin, masarap kainin.
Kinain mo’t naubos, nabubuo pang lubos.
111
IMPRESYON SA ISANG DIKTADOR Huwag, huwag mong sabihin na siya’y tunggak loko tanga-Marunong iyon sa pandaraya’t panggagahis. Huwag mong sabihing gago o hangal--
Sa katusuhan wala siyang pangalawa.... Huwag, huwag mong sabihing ulol o baliw siya-Siya’y tuso sa pangako’t pambobola....
Totoong alam natin ito, hindi maiisahan, sanay na tayo. Ilang bilanggo’t nasawi ang testigo dito. Huwag mong sabihing di natin alam
Ang mga taktika ng mangungulimbat
At estratehiya ng mga galamay ng Estado-
Magkasundo tayo ng diktador sa kabatiran
112
Na sa larangan ng politika tayo naglalaban-Di lang sa diwa o isip, madugong tagisan
Ng mga katawan--tortyur, dukot, sapilitang pagkawala-Pagwasak ng katawan ay politika,
Ang kaligtasan ng laman ay politika, Ang bangkay ay politikang natalo,
Ang buhay ng mga anak ay politikang nagtagumpay. Kaya magkasabwat tayo ng diktador,
Kapwa tayo alagad ng walang patawad na Realpolitik-Ang madugong transpormasyon ng diwa’t kilos,
Katawa’t kaluluwa, pakikipagkapwa’t pangungulila.
113
DEMONSTRASYON PARA KAY KASAMANG STALIN [Halaw mula kay Langston Hughes]
Tinaguriang Kasamang Bakal, malambot ang iyong dibdib,
Nasugatan ng paghihikahos ng uring manggagawa’t magsasaka Sa bilangguan ng Tsar, nagpupugay kami, Mga taga-Ben Tre, Biyetnam Hanap mo’y kalayaan, Kasamang Stalin,
Di para sa iyo kundi para sa masa ng sansinukob Kaya humawak ng baril, bumabati kami, Mga taga-Lidice, Czechoslovakia.
Mula Antartica hanggang Zanzibar
Inilarawan kang berdugo sa propaganda ng imperyalismo ngunit Sa puso naming taga-Guernica, Espanya, Ikaw ang pulang tala ng pagbabangon.
Magiting na Komunista, Kasamang Stalin,
Kaming taga-Soweto’t Karameh ay nagpapasalamat sa iyong halimbawa Kung may pagkakamali ka man, iyo’y napunan na Sa tagumpay ng digmaan laban sa pasismo.
114
Kaming mga taga-Jolo’y sumusumpang ibuburol ang imperyalismong Kano’t Mga kakutsaba sa harap mo, dakilang Stalin,
Saanmang lupalop kung saan ang maso’t karit ay di lamang sagisag Kundi kagamitang mabisa sa pang-araw-araw na gawain.
115
TAHIMIK Payapang lugar walang tilii bulahaw hiyaw kulog dagundong Tahimik Walang tinig taghoy halinghing sigaw saklolo tahol tugtog palakpak iyak Walang bigkas atungal palahaw tanguyngoy usap ngalngal tagulaylay Walang ingay ungol haginghing himutok irit hibik hagulgol angil Payapa Walang hikbi daldal haluyhoy lagaslas alingawngaw saklolo Walang huni sipol pagaspas lawiswis halakhak agas-as Walang siyap sutsot bulong alatiit kuliling kaluskos paswit Tahimik
116
Piping lahat--negunit bakit may kumakatok humihingi ng saklolo
ugong sa sulok
anasan sa butas
ng bungo ...psssssst---
117
