Breaking from Simounic Revolutionary Thought: A Discourse on the Futility of a Revolution with Historicity and the Marxian Views of Individual-State Relations

Hansley A. Juliano, II AB Political Science: December 2, 2008

Whenever the phenomenon of revolution is mentioned in the course of the Philippine political sphere, the first images that come to our minds are usually those of the men with rolled sleeves, raised clenched fists and brandishing bolo knives carrying a crimson banner of dissent intent on bringing down tyrannical overlords. It might also be an overflowing massed humanity carrying placards and shouting slogans or demands for reform or against unjust, corrupt and self-serving leaders. It seems that our view on the act of revolution is that it is a process that could be empirically carried and something that has a definitive, absolute end. Therefore, we glorify, stress and sometimes exaggerate the supposed goals and the results that shall be garnered from any revolutionary enterprise. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the very view on revolution that has caused a lingering disillusionment among the demos to even dare to conduct or participate in such action. More often than not, we hear people saying: We have always called for change. We have revolted so many times. Nothing has happened whatsoever. So what for?

This notion of revolution as historical (that is, having an absolute and definite endpoint) has been strongly refuted by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In fact, he clarified that once a revolution has supposedly already achieved its goals (or claim to do so), it is time that this revolution be subjected to another overthrow of another revolution. Constant with Hegel’s chain of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, this never-ending sequence intends (and therefore advocates) constant change and improvement. Most revolutions, when they succeed, overthrow the institution from which they have rebelled from and then establish their version of what the institution must be. This institution, following Hegelian thought, should then be subject to another revolution which would overthrow it; a symbolical execution of the master by the apprentice as Eastern martial art tradition has been portrayed. And even yet, this very action of overthrowing the master is something that the slave cannot do, which prevents him from achieving change. This constant and repeated frustration, however, was not intended to make man think of political action as something that is futile and not worth pursuing. In fact, it should encourage men to dream, invigorate them to act and constantly refine themselves in the pursuit of the ideal life, as is the goal of politics has been defined.

Such a form of action reminds me of the thought process of student activist groups in the duration of the First Quarter Storm. As related by former journalist and writer Jose “Pete” Lacaba in his book of the accounts of the events in the political sphere of the early 1970’s, entitled Days of Disquiet, Nights of Rage, these students constantly evaluate themselves and their standpoints with issues in contrast to the actions of the tightly-controlled Marcos government. They have been known to frequently reconsider their points whenever the administration actually begins to take them in consideration. In constantly revitalizing and reforming the voices of change, they remain relevant to the society in which they act and try to improve.

Karl Marx, however, would not want history and the course of political action to proceed. He establishes a form of historical action that culminates, true to his claim of “rectifying what Hegel has placed upside-down,” in the eradication of conflict and demystification of human relations. That is, there is an intent to transform humanity into a socialized whole, wherein conflict and inequalities have been snuffed out as simply fireworks intended to dazzle or even mislead us into thinking that we are progressing as a society, when in reality there is no least measure visible. His Theories on Feuerbach expresses this intent of doing away with all established norms and structures society has placed on human communities and, in a micro level, their collective consciousnesses, rejecting all of these as mere “opiates.” Marx maintains that human oppression shall always occur, as long as people have relations set by the community. Under the influence of such “opiates” as religion and obsession with rights, people cannot truly be able to assert themselves in the context within which they live, act and produce. Every produce then, therefore, is a mere product of oppression, something that should not surprise us and something that should not be enjoyed.

It appears, then, that in this light revolution is protracted and with a certain requirements – aimed at a common, timed and precise achievement of particular living conditions. This is not simply the sudden appearance of someone with a messianic complex of salvation that would liberate people from their woes without them being active themselves in their own liberation. This form of revolution transforms people into scientists willing to experiment and act according to what social change necessitates them to do, what would be needed to mitigate reforms which would eliminate necessity for exploitation: that is, human relation. There shall be a move to make men self-sufficient in the classless society so as not to cause any more oppression due to the need of production and labor in the support of human relations.

However, this is quite problematic if we are going to follow traditional notions of revolutionary action. What is Marx proposing is that we, in our act of dissent against the institution, think of our objectives as certain and ending. This is exemplified, from a different perspective, by the statement of the fictional jeweller Simoun with regards to his insurrectionist plan intended to orchestrate the downfall of a corrupt colonial system: “Fire and steel to the cancer, chastisement to vice, and afterwards destroy the instrument, if it be bad!” By ending the conflicts in the classless, communist society, there shall be the likelihood of people being complacent and not thinking about the status of their habitation as well as their neighbour. If all men would be self-sufficient, there would be no need for community-building and interactions with each other, ending politics as Marx intended. To end politics, then, would be to deprive human of their basic needs: constant change, constant improvement.

To Write or To Strike: A Discourse on the Dichotomy of Historicity and Consciousness, and How Such Affects Human Relations and Revolutionary Intent

Hansley A. Juliano, II AB Political Science: December 2, 2008

It is lamentable, in more ways than one, that human relations have not changed very much compared to the past five centuries. Some may find this statement quite unusual, paradoxical, and erroneous even, due to the fact that many forms of human relations exist today which have not existed before, or may have been considered as unusual or potentially dangerous associations. Today, developed and developing countries have been patrons of liberality and are obsessed with obtaining and maintaining a limitless degree of freedom which will allow people to shape their selves as they please. Such cannot be said of the societies of centuries past where norms, rules and regulations are firmly in place, intended to inhibit the individual from straying from the community of his origin. And yet, despite this supposed situation of open floodgates allowing people to be free as they can, they themselves are now the ones who claim to be unfree. They blame history, fate, predestination and all other supernatural abstractions which supposedly pull the strings of their lives as if they were puppets on a stage.

One cannot help but either roar in laughter or wallow in pools of tears in hearing such a blatant washing of hands more crass than Pontius Pilate’s. It appears as if man, who was supposedly created in the likeness and image of a Supreme Being, is now simply reduced to a mere instrument created at some particular point without reason. Such would be a description of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s notion of history and historicity as conscious and ever-moving. This belief gave birth to the now-cliché yet stupid statement of “history repeating itself,” when it is in fact we ourselves who repeat history due to lack of hindsight, the ability to learn from experience and respect to tradition. To say that history should define us is to deny the human capability for action, deliberation and change.

It is in this light that we try to understand how, then, could man should learn how to negate action while being active and engaging his desire. To negate action, it was said, is to consume the very feeling or sensation of desire by the act of fulfilling that particular desire. For instance, one person might want a blueberry cake. This desire for the blueberry cake is so intense that it can only be quenched by presenting him with that blueberry cake, and for the person to eat it. In consuming the cake, the desiring person negates the very object of his desire, and thus negates his action. In this sense, man is transformed a person who is not one who controls history but is controlled by history. His desire to act is always frustrated by the fact that he finds no sense of accomplishment, that everything he does cannot make a mark, and yet is thus that he lives in society and practices politics.

The imagery is, in a way, a good example of perpetual tension; uncertain departure, uncertain arrival. I am reminded of the socialization of the pre-Martial Law Armed Forces of the Philippines as described in Alfred McCoy’s Closer than Brothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy. It was said that to ensure civilian supremacy, the officers were socialized into placing the authority of civil government at highest regard. Through this, they could not possibly nor dare think that the military can initiate a government on their own, much less govern the country better through a military junta. As events and history proved, this form of socialization was nullified by the Marcos presidency. This was mentioned to illustrate the fact that this conscious sense of frustration, contrary to what Hegel intended, is not political, if not should be detached from the proper political course of action. The armed forces are never supposed to be politicized: any attempt to politicize them will cause a chaotic phase in the life of the state, as we will discuss below.

The notion of political action as one that is laced by the element of surprise, as promulgated by traditional and classical political thought as well as the contemporary notion created by Hannah Arendt would be, in more ways the one, be the better political course of action as it And thus it is set that the discussion of the master-slave dialectic is put in focus. It is said that the master and the slave must fight to the death, as it is through this that the wheels of history are seen at motion. No one between them initiated the conflict; it is the dictate of history.

The slave, guided by the belief that he is not actually bound by the world, but his master is, would be led to rebel and try to break off the chains that restrain him from the moment of his defeat at the hands of that master. The fact that he is the one who creates the world for the master who consumes it shows that he is detached from it, that he can transcend it and use it to gain his freedom. Such would evolve later into the famous battle cry of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto: “they have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”

And yet this could not be, and should not be. To think and believe that man can actually gain freedom through denial of his very own existence and giving up all his scruples to the dictates of history (or believing that such scruples are the dictate of history) suggests that man has no free will, that he is not someone who can hold his destiny in his hands. This might be consonant with St. Augustine on a particular level, but it runs counter to classical notion of politics as community-building. The politicization of the armed forces, leading them to believe that their restraint has created the world as they see it and they can create it in their own image, eventually brought forth the downward slide of that state into tyranny, rapaciousness and extreme alienation to the people. The names and events are countless: Pinochet, Franco, Idi Amin and more so, Marcos. The Reform the Armed Forces movement, though seemingly a group for reform, are in reality still soldiers who have been misled by a sense of overflowing power and now wishing to end their restraint by indulging it and holding on to it, not consuming it for the good of the state, something even Hegel himself would disapprove of.

Losing the Three Flags: A Discourse on the Notion of Kantian and Foucauldian Enlightenment and the Demise of the Political to the Social and Economic

Hansley A. Juliano, II AB Political Science: November 25, 2008

The notions of Enlightenment as expressed in the essays of Immanuel Kant and Michel Foucault, both entitled “What Is Enlightenment?” has been given a precise demarcation, marked by a question that is bounded by the realms of the finite, the rejection of scientific deliberation as a consonant to achieving a certain level of understanding. Despite the fact that Foucault abhors scientific methods of discerning the philosophical and the political, he does not reject its very inherent roots of careful and methodological analysis and criticism. At the same time, he also disengages from the Kantian notion of subjectivity as universal, having had a firm belief in the being specific of an entity based from its cultural and historical situation. It appears, then, that Kant was stemming from a theological tradition that, though almost fully immersed in the political life of the Classical and Renaissance era of thought, is something that is not given much consideration in the Modern and contemporary era of philosophy. In believing that there is a universal definition by which men are governed and deliberate their actions, we run the risk of giving them a stereotypical characteristic, something which would trap them in a blob. This, then, runs counter to the traditional Classical notion of men as individual and assertive of their personal identity but do so in service to the state.

Such a discussion brings to mind a parallel argument that occurred between the jeweller Simoun and the supposedly-liberal peninsular politician Don Custodio in José Rizal’s radical novel El Filibusterismo. The jeweller, in secret the vengeful former ilustrado Crisostomo Ibarra, intended to wage a revolution which will bring forth the downfall of the Spanish central colonial government. He planned to bring this forth by corrupting the government and forcing the enslaved indios to despair, which will cause them to take up arms. One of these policies he devised is to once more enact forced labor to create a waterway in the Pasig River, one which was met by strong criticism from Don Custodio. This was not brought forth by his belief in his projected conviction of being a Liberal (affirming the right and equality of men), but due to the fear that such harsh policies might incite insurrections dangerous to the status quo.

Knowing fully the danger of being considered unpatriotic, I would say that it was Don Custodio who was following the sounder political course of action, though his motivations are not entirely in consonance with what politics require. In seeking to drive the people to madness and despair, Simoun intends to create a society driven by pure desire to accumulate, a people only driven by their wanton drive to fill empty stomachs. Rizal himself repudiates this, as witness the rebukes the fictional Father Florentino gave to Simoun at the end of the novel. A revolution is only validated if it is for a noble belief on uplifting the human condition, the desire to recover a lost means of communication and community-building. To build on the ashes and remains of vice and collective brokenness will mean only simply to repudiate the historicity of the people and risk committing the same mistakes that our predecessors committed. History does not repeat itself; we repeat history.

It is in this light, then, that we attempt to look at the circumstances that brought forth the events of the 1896 Filipino Revolution. It appears to me that there is a question that has been left out for so many years now, a question which we will attempt to give a few initial answers: the question of its effectivity. By comparison to its predecessors in the French Revolution and the American Revolution which gave birth to leading and powerful nations, what it has only accomplished is the birth of a stunted and weak nation which immediately fell at the first swoop of invasion by the Gringos.

Contrary to popular (and heavily Marxist-influenced) opinion that the call for revolt originated from the hungry masses, the roots of revolution, reform, were sowed by the middle-classes, the very same people who would rise to prominence as the highest Filipino caste (if one may be allowed to use the term). They have, in fact, cultivated a novel approach into the objective of community-building that has not actually been considered by both French and American: a desire to return to the original traditions of the people, reclamation of their identities and their communities which were, supposedly, mangled and perverted by the establishment of the highly-discriminatory Spanish conquistadores. This is actually by far nobler, if not as noble, as the desire of the Founding Fathers of the American Union.

And yet they fell to the same trappings that brought forth the downfall slide of the French Revolution. In their discussions of restoring foundations, all made the unfortunate error of considering first economic questions as those of utmost importance. To channel the hot and burning fervour of the people simply to place food on the table is contrary to the interests of community-building; it, in fact, dissuades interaction with each other, converting each citizen into a mere carabao waiting for a day’s worth of hay and would have no other interaction with others of its kind save during mating season. This pre-eminence of protecting self-interests was, in fact, the very root of the First Republic’s downfall and eventual evolution into puppet republics through the promises of “Benevolent Assimilation” and inclusion in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, all strewn in paths of blood. The selfish desires of the Malolos Congress are to be blamed a lot for their rational choice of seeking to preserve and accumulate, even under the “protection” of new colonial masters.

Thus it did happen that the banners of liberté, egalité and fraternité were swept under the “merciful embrace” of Madame Guillotine, only to be stopped by the imperialist designs of Napoleon Bonaparte. Thus did it transform the supposedly- egalitarian United States into what would be today’s world-hegemon, endlessly babbling about bringing civilization while it is actually only creating a global empire. And thus, the Philippine Islands has remained in slavery, stunted growth and disunity.

The "Thinkpiece Series"

As a means of opening and reinforcing life into this abandoned blog, I have decided to re-post some of the "thinkpieces" we have worked on for the class on Contemporary Political Theories, coded PoS 61, under Mr. Rene Raymond R. Raneses. I welcome people to critique these pieces of textual diarrhea.

They will be posted in chronological order based from the date of submission (or fabrication if not collected). Wishing to hear your opinions.

Dahil Wasak Na Ang "Chain of A's"

Ngayong araw na ito ko siguro unang naunawaan ang naturalesa ng tinatawag nilang penomenon ng "hangover." Alam mo yun, yung parang okey sana, masarap ang pakiramdam, lumulutang sa alapaap, pero pang-asar lang talagang tatawagin ka oras-oras patungong banyo para maglabas ng mamasa-masang hindi mo malaman kung mapait o ano ba yun sa lalamunan mo? Kaya ano ang nangyari? Kung kailan may araw na bisperas ng midterms at may midterms, hindi nag-aral. So palakpakan naman. Sa sobrang sakit pa ng dibdib, ulo at utak ko, saktong gising akong lagpas na naman sa oras ng klase. Napapaisip tuloy ako baka masyado na lang mabait ang kaklase ko at pinagtitiyagaan pa niya akong pakopyahin, kahit hindi halata sa mukha niya (speaking, hindi ko pa pala alam ang apelyido niya). Buti na lang nauunawaan ko pa ang takbo ng ideya at kung ano pa ba ang dapat kong memoryahin para sa pagsusulit bukas. At siyempre, dahil mabait pa rin si Sir Greg Orara na hindi nagtatala ng late kundi ng absence lamang (sabi nga niya: pag may di ka naabutan di bahala ka na sa buhay mo [sabay kindat]).

At ngayon, pagkatapos nito ay naranasan ko ang tinatawag nilang "Ambeth Ocampo exam."

Sa totoo lang, masaya ang exam. Tinuruan lang niya ako ng mapait na katotohanang kailangan mong itala uli ang mga petsa nang hindi ka nanghuhula sa tila masyadong malaking bahagi ng pagsusulit. At surprise, surprise! May patutunghan din pala ang aking obsesyon sa pagsusulat ng baybayin (o ang sabi nga niya'y maling terminong alibata) simula noong Grade 6 pa lamang ako. Liban pa doon, hindi pa nga ganoon kasabog ang inaasahan ko batay sa kanyang mga kwentong "Alamat ng Labanan sa Mactan" o "Alamat ng Aso sa Luneta."

At karugtong niyan, mayroon akong mga bagay na natutunan sa aking pagsusulat sa klaseng ito sa Hi 165:

1. Hindi katulad ng iba kong klase sa PoS, hindi yata magandang ideya na sisipi ka sa mga sulatin ng mismong guro mo. Di bale, baka maareglo ito sa "feedback appeal system" niya.

2. Panakot pala ang pangalan ni PJ Avellana (or for that matter, kahit sinong artistang nakilala noong Dekada 80 o 90 pero laos na ngayon) sa mga Martial Law Babies.

3. Makakatulong ang paglalatag ng argumento batay kina Edward Said at Gayatri Spivak sa pag-aaral ng mga kulturang Silanganin, lalo na ang Pilipinas.

4. Bagaman hindi ito kabahagi ng pagsusulat (o baka magiging bahagi pa lamang), napaisip ako nang malupit sa argumento ni Nick Joaquin sa pagiging imposible ng pagwawaksi natin sa pagkalatag ng kulturang Espanyol sa ating kasaysayan. Hindi raw pwedeng tanggalin ang impluwensiya ng Ikon, Friar and Conquistador sa ating kamalayang pagkaPilipino. Siyempre malamang sa malamang galit na naman ang UP History Department, o for that matter ang intellegentsia ng UP na sumasamba pa rin kay Teodoro A. Agoncillo na nagpipilit na "there is no Philippine history before 1872, merely a chronicle of Spain in the Philippines."

5. Kung minsan tuloy hindi ko mapigilang isipin kung sakali na: namumroblema nga kaya ang Pilipinas ngayon sa mga usapin ng debit, credit, puslit, kupit, externalities, global markets, financial crisis, recession, market, imperfect competition, monopoly et al at kung anu-ano pang terminong ekonomiko na, kung hindi ako nagkakamali, ay laging nakaugat sa konsepto at sistema ng kapitalismo kung hindi tayo kahit kailan nakolonisa katulad ng Thailand? Bagaman tunay ngang hindi rin nakaligtas ang Thailand dito, ewan. Hindi kaya... may silbi rin talaga si Jean-Jacques Rousseau?