"Still, the revolt of the poor continues."
Regarding the present Duterte's neo-Marcosian authoritarianism
the aggravation of its existing problem,
and the people's clamour for national liberation and social justice
and the people's clamour for national liberation and social justice
The Philippines's failure to achieve a progressive state as a fulfillment of a revolutionary aspiration has as much to do with the structural constraints inherent in the system such as its interest-driven order, its culture, and personality of the head of government. This writeup also examines Filipino Authoritarianism, which is currently espoused by the present Duterte administration, and its means through which each chose to implement that particular version of utopia.
For the fact that by discarding democracy for a local brand authoritarianism was (and is) for the Philippines more than just a reaction to continuous crisis and its myriad of threats from the common people. At times, it tries to be as "leftist as the left" in spite of its obviously rightist nature, and to think that Philippine nationalism was increasingly leaning in the former, it was (and is) all based from a structural problem that made the commoner insist that the revolution since 1896 hath been left "unfinished."
And in spite of its obviously neoliberal-globalist agenda, the regime tries to make it appear as inclusive to other sectors such as trying to make itself "as leftist as the left" by promising an extensive agrarian reform program, an efficient distribution of social services, and in order to realise as such the administration had to appoint some leftists in the cabinet, who seriously adheres to its commitments.
However, in spite of its facade of inclusiveness, the regime's authoritarian nature is a knock-off of its predecessors. Specifically from its idolised figure who declared Martial Law in 1972, the current administration bared its fangs to every sector, especially the poor with its anti-drug campaigns, the indigenous folks with threats to flattening their communities with aerial bombings and various forms of state-sponsored brigandage, and others with controversial measures like the "National ID System" and the like. From these scenarios, if aggravated, may lead to another version of Martial Rule, in which its apologists be redescribe as a "revolution" even it is obviously isn't.
From the views of the apologetics
In the eyes of the apologetics, the regime means change. From its campaign slogan last 2016, its mass appeal, straightforwardness and image of a man of action hath swept him to the presidency. With various infrastructures being taken place, newly-enacted laws the free college education bill, and reports about the Marcos family as willing to turn over to the government part of their ill-gotten wealth, the regime, regardless of more than 7,000 have been killed in the illegal drug war, and threats that affected every sector of the society, apologists, insist that the so-called "change" hath take place.
It may sound contradicting knowing that the recent controversial events hath appeared to be hindering the regime's developmentalist moves, but, apologists also see to it that with those controversial moves be reinterpreted as a cathartic in nature, coupled with fabricated reports meant to rally the people towards the regime against the opposition. And these apologists also see that the regime, specifically its administrator's moves, stances, views, no matter how controversial it is, as "natural", and they would even justify it using a familiar Spanish saying: “El vicio natural no puede quitar" (The natural defect cannot be removed).
Also to think that with the country's endeavour to build a society free from various forms of anxieties over basic necessities, and able to enjoy a semblance of an improved living standards, the regime has to present something that appears to be in response to the people's demands, anything that appears to carry a perspective that is progressive and forward-looking, although in fact lies its contrary- that in case of agrarian reform it consolidates the landlords, and in indigenous people's rights, the 'development' aggressors.
And to paraphrase Fred R. von der Mehden's work, that no purely leadership in the Philippines has made such great efforts in the ideological field, but rather purely 'personal'. This can partially be explained by the ideological context of some of the rebellions which have faced for years, the backgrounds of a number of the more influential personages, and finally, by the tendency of the country to present problems. Once, Ferdinand Marcos, through a group of intellectuals including former Communist Party member Nilo Tayag created an 'ideology' which was called "Filipinism" in mid 1970s, which was meant to create an ideological foundation for his martial rule, or in his views a "liberal" response to a "jacobin" problem. Other succeeding regimes followed suit, ranging from "Christian-Demcoratic", "Liberal", and even "Populist" views that actually meant to cover the actual order that is, "Semifeudal" and "Semicolonial."
Actually, the application of such "ideologies" was and is somewhat more confused than the system would care to admit. The Marcos regime (as well as its successors) tried much to create a hodge-podge of thoughts, which was meant to counter the growing leftist clamour in the 1960s. Actually, the application of such "ideologies" was and is somewhat more confused than the system would care to admit. The Marcos regime tried much to create a hodge-podge of thoughts, which was meant to counter the growing leftist clamour in the 1960s. However, differences of opinion were apparent on the major questions regarding foreign relations, in which the Philippines, being a staunch Atlanticist, started to gain relations with the Soviet bloc and especially Red China; as well as the issue of Agrarian Reform in which actually faced opposition from the landed gentries. Its successors continue to overhear such issues, especially with the latter amidst passage of several laws concerning that "agrarian question."
And still, its failure to end basic socioeconomic problems
But nevertheless, in spite of populist agendas, the structures of oligarchic power were not modified in their socio-economic aspects. Apologists may still continue to parrot about the administration's "feats", but none of these are successful to mitigate the issues on poverty and social injustice. There are confrontations began with the aggravations of police operations "Tokhang" and "Double Barrel", the increasing militarism in the countryside under "Oplan Kapayapaan", and the system's clinging to neoliberal-globalist agenda. There was class struggle within the administration. The oligarchs participated in that populist agenda but not with really serious issues like agrarian reform, industrialisation, and a socially progressive policy. The bourgeoisie wanted to increase its own profits even more, negotiating with imperialism, and the bureaucrats did nothing but stall the process.
Before them the masses, especially those who once voted for Duterte, tended to radicalize social policy. The increase in political consciousness demanded the deepening of the revolutionary national slogans and policies as well as the participation of the workers in the decisions of the leadership.
But in spite of that, what the administration did is actually more of consolidation of interests. As said earlier, there are contradictions within but the goal of the administration remains similar to its predecessors. Statements like "fighting the oligarchs" is used merely as any other rhetoric than a call for action, while "pushing through agrarian reform" without Mariano meant consolidating interests of the landed few; and whereas Marcos opened relations with the Soviet Bloc and Red China, Duterte followed the same intent, even carrying the message of "independent foreign policy"; but these does not mean they afforded to break existing unjust agreements especially with the United States like the "Mutual Defence Treaty", the "Visiting Forces Agreement", and the "Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement."
And to think that most agreements are deemed unequal if not hindering the need for a genuine national development, coupled with aggravated existing issues of poverty, social injustice, and state terrorism, Duterte's neo-Marcosian authoriarianism intensifies rather than averts situations resulting to what being called as the "Revolt of the Poor"; Jacobin is its basic description, but ironically, in spite of Duterte and his apologists assailing the Liberals for its misfitry, Marcos present his own "revolution" as a, "Liberal."
Actually, the application of such "ideologies" was and is somewhat more confused than the system would care to admit. The Marcos regime (as well as its successors) tried much to create a hodge-podge of thoughts, which was meant to counter the growing leftist clamour in the 1960s. Actually, the application of such "ideologies" was and is somewhat more confused than the system would care to admit. The Marcos regime tried much to create a hodge-podge of thoughts, which was meant to counter the growing leftist clamour in the 1960s. However, differences of opinion were apparent on the major questions regarding foreign relations, in which the Philippines, being a staunch Atlanticist, started to gain relations with the Soviet bloc and especially Red China; as well as the issue of Agrarian Reform in which actually faced opposition from the landed gentries. Its successors continue to overhear such issues, especially with the latter amidst passage of several laws concerning that "agrarian question."
And still, its failure to end basic socioeconomic problems
But nevertheless, in spite of populist agendas, the structures of oligarchic power were not modified in their socio-economic aspects. Apologists may still continue to parrot about the administration's "feats", but none of these are successful to mitigate the issues on poverty and social injustice. There are confrontations began with the aggravations of police operations "Tokhang" and "Double Barrel", the increasing militarism in the countryside under "Oplan Kapayapaan", and the system's clinging to neoliberal-globalist agenda. There was class struggle within the administration. The oligarchs participated in that populist agenda but not with really serious issues like agrarian reform, industrialisation, and a socially progressive policy. The bourgeoisie wanted to increase its own profits even more, negotiating with imperialism, and the bureaucrats did nothing but stall the process.
Before them the masses, especially those who once voted for Duterte, tended to radicalize social policy. The increase in political consciousness demanded the deepening of the revolutionary national slogans and policies as well as the participation of the workers in the decisions of the leadership.
But in spite of that, what the administration did is actually more of consolidation of interests. As said earlier, there are contradictions within but the goal of the administration remains similar to its predecessors. Statements like "fighting the oligarchs" is used merely as any other rhetoric than a call for action, while "pushing through agrarian reform" without Mariano meant consolidating interests of the landed few; and whereas Marcos opened relations with the Soviet Bloc and Red China, Duterte followed the same intent, even carrying the message of "independent foreign policy"; but these does not mean they afforded to break existing unjust agreements especially with the United States like the "Mutual Defence Treaty", the "Visiting Forces Agreement", and the "Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement."
And to think that most agreements are deemed unequal if not hindering the need for a genuine national development, coupled with aggravated existing issues of poverty, social injustice, and state terrorism, Duterte's neo-Marcosian authoriarianism intensifies rather than averts situations resulting to what being called as the "Revolt of the Poor"; Jacobin is its basic description, but ironically, in spite of Duterte and his apologists assailing the Liberals for its misfitry, Marcos present his own "revolution" as a, "Liberal."
So is its bloodied truths
As time goes by, the regime, particularly its crime prevention strategy hath been synonymous with its dispensation of "justice", that is bloodied and unjust in character; and in it becomes a major and serious problem rather than a solution to a bigger one be it drugs, criminality, anything the administration literally taking it through the barrel of the gun.
It may sound opposing in that description, particularly those who positively acknowledge the form of justice the administration hath given; but, reality goes something that not all that is described as for public safety is worthy of that phrase. Operations like "Tokhang" and "Double Barrel" and its hordes of scalawags turned a respectable entity into a monstrous one. Names like Kian, Kulot, Carl hath been overheard than those of "Build, Build, Build"; threats like those of "flattening the hills" hath been the widely-heard statement than those of resolving the peasant and of the Indigenous Peoples; and multinationals, foreign overlords exploit madly that shattered the idea of self-reliance or independence in both exonomic and foreign policy;
Of what is justice if more innocents been harassed, unjustly accused, or even killed? Of what is freedom when numerous unjust agreements from the past remained "respected"? Such bloodied truths surpassed their envisions of "building a better country" what more of seeing moneylenders shoving people the bill they ought to pay millions, billions, or even trillions "for all the infrastructures done"; worse, it did nothing to generate development other than to impress others that the country as "fast growing", even its "fruits" as actually trickled less in the hands of the greatly efforted yet badly needed.
There are numerous truths to uncover, enough to shatter the illusion of change the administration hath invoked since day one. The neo-Arroyo, or even a neo-Marcosian nonsense hath throroughly emphasised especially in its vulgar form; But again, knowing the system and its fanatical apologists, invoking fear and irrationality, pointing its outmost angst against those who stood its way through its variety of false accounts, didn't create a just answer to a just problem; what more of justifying a bullshit vulgarly as their standard bearer.
Ironically, like all its predecessors, they desired for unity but they failed to create a program in which serves as a basis to rally each and every sector towards unity; did they offer an alternative? Again, theirs is a recycle of statements and "plans" using new terminologies and paraphrased statements. Whereas Marcos made, no matter how controversial yet useful, was also respected by Aquino and its successors, abit in a different term enough to differentiate from the other; and the fact that Duterte's political party smacks of social democracy or democratic socialism, how come it end parroting neoliberalism, globalisation, or even state terrorism in again, using populist phraseology like development and order?
Again, the bloodied truth brought about by a wretched order dehumanised the community of man. The standard bearer's idol did babble some revolutionary rhetoric including those of human rights but it failed to address the issue of torture, killings, forced disappearances, and displacement from communities. Such bullshits brought about by a wretched order hath made that man as willing to subvert the order that dehumanises him and almost bereft of hope.
Still, a Patriotic and Bolshevist outcome
to a Semifeudal and Semicolonial mess
A government that parrots statements like "we hate oligarchs" yet actually consolidates the rotten status quo makes the concerned sees that the system itself is desperately 'in a state of survival'. Obviously, it has to curry the favour of the people especially to those who are disenheartened by its very own policy, an in it it has to moderate its standing if not trying to accommodate the disenheartened in the "spirit" of terms like "national solidarity" alongside piecemeal changes; but in spite of these reality goes something like having a rotten order struggling to consolidate by hook or by crook, carrot and stick, cooked beans and smoking barrels.
And to think that the system's alibi is nationalism or any of its related nature, then sorry but theirs has nothing to do with nationalism at all, for nationalism has taken over by those who labor yet gained nothing for the system itself took it from the deserved. We've heard enough about optimism that is isn't; and to think that every infrastructure, edifice, anything that creates a façade of development, all these are built by the blood, sweat, mind, and sinew of every tired and exhausted worker who still end having pittances if not disagreed contracts.
No sooner had the Filipino destroyed the formations of the continuing past than the realisation of its ideal, emerging from the aspirations of its forefathers, had begun. Its patriotism, its existing nationalism hath enriched with ideological inheritance of Marxism that hath added class awareness, realism, honesty, trust, and comprehension of their mission to these instincts, all in their destructive struggle against this continuing past social order; sounds incorrect to most since they are attached to the idea of reforming even it is unlikely to accommodate such reforms, but reality hath made the concerned adopted Marxism the way its forefathers in struggle hath adopted Jacobinism.
This writeup may sound opposing to some knowing that they abhor Marxism, but as the country hath gone proletarianised thanks to that semifeudal-semicolonial mess, of having massed ranks of once-peasants gone becoming proletarians in the urban enclaves, that once foreign thought used in the Philippine perspective hath gone indigenised and hence enriches its existing patriotic appeal that was and is, mass oriented. Whereas Bonifacio and Jacinto did adopted the Robespierran Jacobin means of struggle to an existing messianic form, so was Isabelo de los Reyes and Crisanto Evangelista with its own indigenised brand of Marxism to transform a national struggle into a "Bolshevik" one.
And when the destruction finishes its task, lies its construction and restoration all in accordance to the national needs, of creating a government which embodies a just social order everyone desires, and like its Jacobin predecessor, though Marxism would've preferred to do away with governments as with old clutter.
It doesn't matter how outrageously the Marxist ideals contradict what the existing order described as "impulses of national self-preservation", but that Marxism hath provoked the people's awakening, mobilization, and the rise of a once-struggling homeland. All these are driven by its pursuit to survival, but due to neglect by the system makes their class-oriented appeal into a national one. Thus, makes the national becoming proletarian and the proletarian as folkish.