Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Dictators, opportunists, and a Democracy left in the hands of the struggling Elite - A lesson from Robespierre to the Jacobins of today

Of Dictators, opportunists, 
and a Democracy left in the hands of the struggling Elite
- A lesson from Robespierre to the Jacobins of today

"The true democracy is the Democracy of Plato, which is followed by "evil dictators" as the mainstream media say. The Democracy of Robespierre of the Communist French Revolution is what the mainstream media supports, and it is what the Philippine Government follows, no wonder that the Philippines is now in a decrepit state, unlike in the time of the last follower of Platonic Democracy, Ferdinand E. Marcos.."

- From a misunderstood person from Facebook claiming to be a "Democrat"

Well, Democracy? Perhaps this writer would call it "nope" for most dictators cannot consider themselves as democrats and often equating it to mob rule. And since one speaks of the Greeks carrying its legacy, the Democracy during Plato's period, mistaken by the one whom quoted as "Platonic democracy" was itself an Oligarchy, limiting itself to a privileged gentry of males, of aristocrats per se, while Robespierre tend to make Democracy "popular" through the French revolution, that somehow meant destroying the privileges of those old "democrats" that was, under the clutches of the aristocrats.

Quite strange though so to speak regarding the post being made, equating French revolution to the Communists? Well again, Babeuf, one of the Jacobins had been speaking for a communal living prior to Marx whom elaborated further with his writeups Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. The French revolution had been more of a liberal root what most conservatives, especially that person whom glorified the "Greek democracy" of his make scorn of it, and yet even the Fascist Mussolini had been influenced as well by those who took the idea of the French revolution such as Sorel and Proudhon, they are even Anarchistic as well with Sorel who justified violence, strikes, as would serve to enforce solidarity, class consciousness and revolutionary élan amongst the working-class. The storm of the Bastille, the actions at Versailles, at the Tilluries somehow solified the solidarity of the French commoners against the ruling class, so was the tribunals to justify revolutionary justice, in which made others who are scared of deemed "chaos" as if the former as orderly.

And as this writer tend to read the above quotation, seemed that he was mentioning about Marcos as a follower of "Platonic democracy" who's against the Jacobins past and present, yes that he's a dictator who tried to preserve the order by putting certain "changes" and other stuff, yet Robespierre said in regards to those people like Marcos himself:

"If they are Caesars or Cromwells, they seize power for themselves. If they are spineless courtiers, uninterested in doing good yet dangerous when they seek to do harm, they go back to lay their power at their master's feet, and help him to resume arbitrary power on condition they become his chief servants."

Again, true that Marcos had been instituting dictatorial rule, and justifying further by calling it as "constitutional authoritarianism" and making certain reforms a la Napoleon and describing himself as a "revolutionary" thanks to Media decades before; that somehow made Robespierre himself said right that they sieze power all for themselves-not to mention Imelda, Ver, Ramos and Enrile wanting power as well; also not to mention that even today, those who had joined the current administration are a hodge-podge of past administrations helping to preserve the dilapidated social order masquerading as democratic and righteous.

Meanwhile, the system would afford to speak Robespierre-like, especially in regards to the present issues the Philippines encountered; and with its people had started again and again, from social media to the streets, all to vent rage against the corrupt aristocrats whom oftentimes speak populist-like or revolutionary yet failed to realize the promises often said years ago, would somehow speak the same quotation such as what the French revolutionary said:

"I will not remind you that the sole object of contention dividing us is that you have instinctively defended all acts of new ministers, and we, of principles; that you seemed to prefer power, and we equality... Why don't you prosecute the Commune, the Legislative Assembly, the Sections of Paris, the Assemblies of the Cantons and all who imitated us? For all these things have been illegal, as illegal as the Revolution, as the fall of the Monarchy and of the Bastille, as illegal as liberty itself... Citizens, do you want a revolution without a revolution? What is this spirit of persecution which has directed itself against those who freed us from chains?"

Right was Robespierre to say those words pertaining to people who, while speaking on behalf of freedom, had pointed their words those times against those who tend to exploit the revolutionary scene just to destroy those who tend to uphold, remember Aguinaldo and his clique, alongside the ilustrados whom ousted the plebian-minded Bonifacio and his band of lower-class intellectuals for the Katipunan leadership? So are the ilustrados whom, parroting the American occupiers clamoring for "Peace" instead of struggling for independence during the Philippine-American war! True was what Robespierre said about traitors whom guised as patriots especially those who use the sentiments of many merely to preserve their prestige.
But, in a modern sense, true that there are certain officials whom once joined the 1986 and 2001 revolts that toppled Marcos and Estrada, of affording to say some goddamn bragging rights such as certain reforms being put to action; and yet despite all their near-nonsense statements, how come some, if not most amongst their ranks are pulling backwards simply because of their personal gratifications such as corruption and at the same time exploited the aspirations of the people with some piecemeal "reforms", "programs", and the like? Yes, one dares to speak like Robespierre, and say why not prosecute the congress, the Barangay assemblies, the businessmen, and others whom supported the administration to realize their so-called projects? of certain laws being passed? Just because there are certain people who kept their power too firm as their prestige? Perhaps, that goddamn 1986 and 2001 revolts should been deemed illegal, as illegal as the constitution itself and the aspirations of the people that these people on high dare to imitate yet failed to realize, worse that they aggravate past issues that made the Philippines failed to realize its aspirations!

And again, this writer may know much about people nowadays such as those who had protested at Mendiola, EDSA, Katipunan, Mendiola, as well as other parts of the archipelago. But since people had clamoring for change, yet confining themselves into an illusory peace, or so-called order, one would dare to ask like Robespierre: "yes, they want Change, they want Revolution, but what kind of Revolution if it confines itself to 'order'? It's not revolution as what forefathers done! Even the late Gandhi can't consider it as a revolution as he and his followers, in pursuit of social change had to beg differ such as disobedience to the extent of imprisoning themselves and others because of their aspirations.
Or let's say, if they call for a revolution, then why they aren't acting revolutionary by going beyond the issue? It's not all about Aquino, Napoles, Corruption and Pork Barrel- it is the rotten social order that made these happen, what is this spirit of persecution if some failed to point against the system and instead the administration, or to certain officials, to Napoles? Seems that other than the radicals who took arms in the provinces, certain people like the controversial Marlene Aguilar and her friends had to raise their middle fingers, so are the hackers whom wanting to hack government sites as their propaganda of deed; while the rest had gone a protest for a day, and not at all afterwards aside from a few who perhaps used social media as its continuation.

Good for those few, but when will they come back to the streets and start beyond order? Is everyone rather accept the above quotation using Plato as the reference? Using social media isn't enough to call it a substitute for mass action and civil disobedience, of getting beyond the so-called order what the system speaks of. Yes, true as what that misunderstood person stating that Democracy is indeed Greek in its roots, that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates or Pericles had enjoyed the benefits, yet that Democracy was the same Democracy that again limited to males, rich, and excluding the women, the youth, and the poor. Or was that guy quoting mistaking Athens for Sparta? Even Marcos himself, who used revolutionary rhetoric had to use certain individuals as references only to justify his rule than to create certain social changes other than discipline and order- not to mention that despite parroting patriotism, he had to rely on the aid of IMF-WB, of certain Oligarchs, and the Imperialists such as the U.S. regardless of his "reforms" that served as "toppings" for state-sponsored repression guised as Democracy.

That, again made the late great Lenin said this:

“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”

And that freedom for slave owners are also the ones behind that Greek Democracy people beg to oppose and differ. That these slave owners, Landlords, Oligarchs had been represented at the councils, Parliaments, Estates-Generals, National Assemblies, Senate, Congress, any other legislative crap to say they're Democratic yet failed to realize the aspirations of the people.
Yes, just like the ancient Greeks what that misunderstood person said, Freedom for the slave owners, obligations for the commoners! Freedom to exploit the slaves of today's generation and accumulate wealth from their blood, sweat, tears for their self gratification, all regardless of their empty-handed promises, piecemeal reforms, programs, and nonsense rhetoric that brings everyone through the ears. 

Anyways, as today's issues tend to aggravate past tensions, of LumpenBourgeois trying to keep their faux-prestige same as the corrupt bureaucrats and the old rich, these people, like the old Greeks of the past had to continue keeping their "rule" firm by carrot and stick in its subjects, not to mention that they shouldn't been blamed for seeing these same people with all their sugar-coated promises being said upon to them simply because they are regularly being shown by mass media. Worse that, with tensions still continue to aggravate, the one whom speaking about "Platonic democracy" as ideal is the "Democracy" Plato himself beg to disagree! Mentioning that the Philosopher himself had rejected Athenian democracy on the basis that such democracies were anarchic societies without internal unity, that they followed citizens' impulses rather than pursuing the common good, that larger democracies are unable to allow a sufficient number of their citizens to have their voices heard, and that such democracies were typically run by fools.

Furthermore, According to a post made by Dr. Dimitri Kitsikis, said:

"A better word to express people’s power is laocracy, laos in Greek meaning the people, while the demos means only those that in ancient Greece had civil rights, who were demotes, i.e. a very small minority (slaves, women and non citizen residents, the metoikoi, being excluded). Modern democracy is the oligarchy of the capitalist class, it is in fact bourgeois dictatorship."

And that dictatorship, led by a privileged gentry who controlled politics, economy, culture, with all of its wrath given, will rather made the common people dare to struggle against them, to the point of getting beyond the frontier and make a sea of blood that waters the tree of freedom. The democracy of the people is itself Laocratic as the people themselves, not the modern-day Demotes carries the political and economic power that ideally speaking, should been entrusted.

Call it a dictatorship for the many, a tyranny of the majority, but that "Democracy" people idealize about (contrary to the democracy being practising) is of virtue.