Still in a state of struggle

Still in a state of struggle

Notes in a country's still-continuing past 

and its struggle for national-social change 

At first, this person, after reading various news  reports, of comments in social media, and in seeing various forms of social inconveniences, thinks that ever since most  people claim that life as truly unfair, then it is worth admissible that all history is consists of class struggles.

For in this continuing past, everyone hath wittnessed how developing nations struggled against the developed, and within those societies sought how the struggling masses battled against the elites; chaotic in its first impression the way those who record history has sought periods be like the Peasant Revolts of the Middle Ages or the heavily politicised masses of the French Revolution.

However, in spite of all the chaotic yet change-driven intents, there may be peace but as mere intervals, enough to consolidate forces and waiting for another scenario; there may be various forms of achievements enough to steer  developments to and fro, also enough to create a scenario. But to each in everyone who desired a place in the sun, a place wherein justice and honour be prevail, admits that there is a final conflict to face, even in a series of scenarios that would affect life and property - and from there will pave way to a genuine kind of development in which people from all walks of life be imbued with honor, trust, responsibility, equality, freedom, and love.

Sounds ideal it may be, especially with men like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Jose Rizal, or Bonifacio expressed in their works, but it turns out to be real if to be taken seriously and at worse, fatally as every blood, mind, sinew, sweat, waters and weaves the tree and tapestry of a growing nation. That even Christ himself saidth that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and also from he, being the so-called prince of peace he expelled violently the moneylenders from the temple whom he described as the house of his father; 

And from that example one, such as a Church-going, everyday praying, Christian may think that ideal as desperate, foolish move especially that one has to be against the status quo. They may recognise the possibility of change, but, they chose to limit it such as a change in character than a social one. Filipinos desired for independence years ago, and there are men and groups involved in that kind of ideal, but there are Filipinos who rather contented in simple privileges with its next generations be like “we passed by those times, but why are we still the same? If I were they I’d be contented in this current state: to be simple.” Sounds Tandang Basio Macunat isn’t it? For alongside the pessimisms of Señor Pasta and of the faux-fabulousness of Doña Victorina, its generations continue to exist: in a form of nihil-apathetics choosing to “enjoy” if not pseudo-idealists whom preferred to be contented as fencesitters and mindsturbators.

But as a revolutionary who chose to take the bitter cup of sacrifice, poverty, and even death, a value-added contribution meant putting value to a megali idea such as a revolutionary change; From there it lies a continuity of a cherished tradition, alongside the creation of a new order that has nothing to do with the past whose nature as rotten; the former Soviet Union did that, so was people’s China, Korea, Vietnam, Albania.

And to think that in the Philippines, in spite of its independence this person and others concerned is ought to say that it becomes null and void for the prevailing system hinders the path to independence; for sure leaders assumed to be outspoken for independence yet do they truly adhere for it? Not to mention those who babble some change but actually emphasising self-interest; while its apologists, particularly fanatical ones, would still continue to insist that the change being brought from a ruler may also affect the system itself no matter how obvious that it cannot be, given the centuries-old despotic nature that the system treats change half-heartedly if not with disdain for it hinders their personal gains; leaders like Marcos, Duterte, or any other despots assuming to be "for the people" shows that their brand of "change" turns out to be an example of a Bonapartist move- with situations which reactionaries tries to appear themselves as for the people, and in some cases uses selective reforms enough to co-opt the radicalism of the popular classes. 
Marcos did that with his package of food distribution, housing, urban development, and even arts and culture; so was his successors like Duterte whose frankiest basis was to sneer people in the battle for hearts and minds, promising them with take-home pay for lower-income workers while at the same time continuing its bloodied campaign against the poor using the "war on drugs".

But in spite of all their intents, Marx argued that within the process, these personages tends to preserve and mask the power of a narrower ruling class. Fanatics may not believe in that idea what more in opposing and maligning the concerned for investigating and unearthing truths what more of instigating and asserting the need for a revolutionary change; and in the case of the University of the Philippines, students tend to oppose unjust ones and offer just solutions, while fanatics, with their narrow-mindedness treated them as  any other social delinquent and hence liable for their demise simply because of its idealism if not those of its actions. Duterte, like his predecessors, may have approved programs like free education in which apologists applauded for it; but again, like his predecessors, that decree does not stop students from getting concerned what more of getting opposed to the unjust policies the system tend to shove in everyone's throats. He did even threatened them with expulsions, prison bars, even deaths, so where is the freedom and democracy these apologists praised about?

Pardon for some ridicule if not skepticism knowing how the system, in presenting some changes is meant to consolidate theirs than to emancipate the have-nots. Rule of law has becoming a condified rule of men as despots condify their stupidity using a hodgepodge of gutter thoughts and legalese; but to think that in a semifeudal-semicolonial order hinders or negates development for the masses, aggravates centuries-old situations ranging from the peasantry to those of the labouring yet debt-strapped masses, will there truly be Cooperation between those who oppress and those who are being oppressed?

Sorry but that makes it impossible for the latter hinders the path to redemption.