M arxi sm i n the Phil ippin es: Contin ui ng Engageme Engagements, nts, a review review
by Regina Regina Coeli T. Aquino | POLSC 14 THV-1 THV-1 Marxism in the Philippines: Philippines: Continuing Continuing Engagements Engagements is is a compilation of eight select articles articles presented during during the third third UP Third World Studies Studies Center Center (TWSC) Marxism Marxism in the Philippines Philippines Lecture Lecture in 2005. Published in 2010 by Anvil Publishing, the book analyzes the relevance of philosopher Karl Marx‟s ideas to the Philippine context. Each article explores and critiques the praxis of the ideology by the Philippine Left, and its relationship with different sectors such as the peasantry, the women‟s movement, the civil society, and the Church. The first paper is UP art professor Alice Guillermo‟s “Marxism and Ideological Strategies.” Guillermo criticizes the bourgeoisies‟s ideological strategies in various domains of Philippine culture, including the arts, nationalism, class politics, globalization, and civil society. Among the contributors of this book, Dr. Alice Guillermo is the one who raised the typical Marxist arguments. arguments. I have no problem with her thrust that Philippine art, in whatever style, “can be vehicles for political content” (p. content” (p. 10) in the sense that such works can convey progressive ideological convictions that Filipinos can adopt to establish more just political and economic systems. Dr. Guillermo‟s bias starts to become evident in her discussion of nationalism. She contrasts the discourses of bourgeois or ilustrado nationalism and national democracy: the former is anti-people because of of its “vacillating “vacillating and and accommodationist accommodationist character” character” (p. 12), while the latter is pro -people because “[i]t strives for political, economic, and cultural independence and the achievement of true sovereignty” (p. 11). Her obvious support for the national democratic movement movement blinds her from the flawed views and practices of the Philippine Philippine Left Left which were were discussed discussed instead instead by the other other contributors contributors of the book. On religion, Dr. A. Guillermo Guillermo (2010) goes on to note something important, important, with which I heartily agree: “[t]he large role that religion plays in the present national life and culture is such that there remains little appreciation of the secular state that is constitutive of m odern republicanism” (p. 16). Religious 16). Religious groups‟ groups‟ religion-based religion-based convictions are valid political inputs. But in debates, they must learn to translate their religious values into secular principles that will benefit everyone regardless of f aith (Cauthen, n.d.).
Finally, her discussion of globalization is again reflective of her leaning towards Marxism. But I think her Marxist critique on globalization, particularly on neoliberalist global economic discourse, is valid. Neoliberalism as an economic doctrine has “roll[ed] back welfare provisions” (Heywood, 2011a) and exposed public goods and services such as education and health to privatization, making them inaccessible to the poorer majority of Filipinos. I also agree with the Marxist critique on the implications of globalization on culture. While cultural exchange takes various forms such as localization, regionalization, and multi-culturalism (Heywood, 2011b), the cultures of more powerful countries such as the USA will still spread more widely than those of less powerful ones, thus bringing about cultural hegemony and homogeneity. The second paper is UP Philippine literature professor Ramon Guillermo‟s “Notes on Zeus Salazar‟s Filipino Translation of The Communist Manifesto.” Guillermo criticizes Salazar‟s purist view that some concepts in Marxism such as “bourgeois,” “proletariat,” and “feudalism” cannot be applied and linguistically translated to Filipino because of the differences between European culture, from which Marxism originated, and Filipino culture. Prof. Guillermo was right when he pointed out that while Filipino culture and history is definitely different from that of Europe, nevertheless, there are Filipinos who own means of social production and employ labor, and there are Filipinos who do not own any means of social production and sell their labor power. Ideologies may have been created at a specific point in history by a specific culture, but ideological concepts have assumptions that may be applicable to another. The third paper is Kathleen Weekley‟s “Marxism, Nationalism, Globalization, and the Left.” Weekley criticizes the Philippine Left for viewing the State as mere imperialist puppets not worthy of political engagement. She also urges it to open itself to larger political arenas opened up by globalization. I agree with Weekley‟s free advice for the Left to do away with their non -engagement stance with the State. I think that is the reason why they do not get the support of many Filipinos. The Left never bothered to lobby with the State because it firmly believes that State will never side with people and will only protect its interests and those of its foreign backers. The people disapprove of its marching militancy
because they never saw the party sit down. I think the Left should engage the State in accepted political arenas, and from there expose the State‟s failure to do its mandate to serve and protect the people. If the people understand why it is sometimes necessary to fight for their rights on the streets, maybe then will they appreciate the Left‟s militant and uncompromising stance. Weekley (2010) also argued that the Left must go beyond nationalism in the face of globalization. One of her suggestions is that the Left consider federalism as a postnationalist political form. Some politicians, scholars and experts believe that federalism “would respond to the geographical obstacle and differences caused by cultural diversity on governance because it allows fragmentation while at the same time promoting national interest” (Brillantes & Moscare, 2002, p. 1) . However, the UP Department of Political Science‟s Primer on Federalism (as cited in Viray, n.d.) says that no one advocates yet a particular type of federalism that is suited to the country. Weekley advocated federalism for the same reasons, but she also failed to suggest what type of federalism would be good for the country. She also failed to see the risks of adopting federalism if our present political problems such as political dynasties and uneven distribution of wealth among the regions will not be resolved before the government transforms into a federalist one (Viray, n.d.) The fourth paper is Eduardo Tadem‟s “Marxism, the Peasantry, and Agrarian Revolution in the Philippines.” Tadem explored the actual experiences of peasants from three barangays in Central Luzon with the former Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (PKP-HMB) and the re-established Communist Party of the Philippines- New People‟s Army (CPP-NPA). Tadem has two main observations: 1) the armed movements “addressed only political concerns and did not substantially take on pressing economic concerns such as the land issue” (Tadem, 2010, p. 99); and 2) the peasants help or resist both the communist and the state forces. I think studies like Tadem‟s are important so that we do not merely rel y on macrostudies, because sometimes the overarching concepts of such broad studies do not hold true in specific circumstances. As Tadem (2010) said, “it is also necessary and essential that more attention be paid to the local and direct experiences” of the oppressed sectors that are assumed to be the mass bases of a revolutionary struggle.
The fifth paper is Aida Santos‟s “Marxism and the Philippine Women‟s Movement: Reflection on Praxis.” Narrating her own experiences in the movement, Santos unveiled the tensions between Marxism and feminism, particularly the former‟s neglect of women‟s reproductive issues which ari se from their being biologically female. This paper, which is very similar to that of Tadem in the sense that it focused on a specific experience, had some interesting revelations: 1) some male members in national democratic movement still ordered the female members a lot; and 2) Marxist hardliners accuse feminists of being divisive for deviating from Marxism‟s class analysis of gender issues. Personally, I salute leftist activists for their principled and sincere intentions to create a more just system. But if some of them do not practice the Left preachings of equality and do not graciously accept criticisms on the party‟s beliefs and practices, then just how different are they from the State that they oppose? The sixth paper is Armando Malay Jr.‟s “Marxism and Civil Society: The Uneasy Encounter.” Malay argues that the civil society is an instrument of the ruling class, and Marxist-Leninists remain cautious when engaging with them because doing so seriously may water down the revolution into a series of reforms – something that happened during the EDSA People Power 1 & 2. The validity of Malay‟s arguments is based on its practicality. Malay (2010) asserts that the country‟s strong civil society makes revolution impossible, and if the Left wants the support of the people, their politicization of the masses inevitably has to employ some of the spectacular gimmickry used by the ruling class. With this I heartily agree. Politics is also about strategy. The ruling class has used spectacle to keep the masses “politically unintelligent.” If the Left can use that to genuinely raise the masses‟ political awareness and reverse their situation, I think that will be justifiable. The seventh pa per is Caroline Hau‟s “The „Chinese Question‟: A Marxist Interpretation.” Hau proves that issues on race and ethnicity can be analyzed using class analysis by examining the alienated position of the Chinese in Philippine society and economy. Hau‟s argument is reflective of the Marxist idea of internationalism, or the belief that the oppressed and the marginalized from all over the world must collectively struggle for their emancipation
(Wikipedia, n.d.), with which I agree. Chinese tycoons in the country like Henry Sy and Lucio Tan exploit Filipinos and Chinese workers and have unfair advantage over small Filipino and Chinese businessman. Because of them, Chinese immigrants are discriminated in the Philippines because they are generalized as greedy profit-seekers. The last paper is Joseph Scalice‟s “Marxism and Philippine Theoogy.” Scalice argued that the merger of Philippine theology and Marxism provides an ethical commitment to the creation of a more just society. Scalice‟s argument that revolutionary religion, particularly liberation theology, can emancipate the masses as much as conservative religions can enslave them has been articulated many times by many others. What stands out for me is his prescriptive argument that Marxists must deconstruct the class contradictions behind the Christian Bible. I just hoped that he extended it to other similar religious doctrines. Marxism remains a valid and useful perspective in analyzing political, economic, and cultural issues in the Philippines. But adhering too firmly to some of its tenets may not anymore be effective political strategies in fast-changing contexts of the present time. Marxist forces in the country must be open to criticisms and recommendations from inside and outside of their parties, especially if those will bring about a genuine revolution, a positive system change in the Philippines.
References: Brillantes, A. B. Jr. & Moscare, D. (2002). Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines: Lessons from Global Community. Paper presented at the International Conference of the East West Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.up ncpag.org/pdf/decentralization_federalism.pdf Cauthen, K. (n.d.). Church and State, Politics and Religion. Frontiernet.net . Retrieved from http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/relandpo.htm Guillermo, A. G. (2010). Marxism and Ideological Strategies. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 8-26). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Guillermo, R. G. (2010). Notes on Zeus Salazar‟s Filipino Translation of The Communist Manifesto. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 31-45). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Hau, C. S. (2010). The “Chinese Question”: A . In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 156-187). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Heywood, A. (2011a). The Economy in a Global Age [Chapter 4]. In Global Politics (pp. 83-110). US and UK: Palgrave Macmillan Heywood, A. (2011b). Society in a Global Age [Chapter 4]. In Global Politics (pp. 136-180). US and UK: Palgrave Macmillan Malay, A. Jr. (2010). Marxism and Civil Society: The Uneasy Encounter. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 141-155). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Santos, A. F. (2010). Marxis and the Philippine Women‟s Movement: Reflections on Praxis. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 113-140). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Scalice, J. (2010). Marxism and Philippine Theology. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 191-213). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Tadem, E. C. (2010). Marxism, the Peasantry, and Agrarian Revolution in the Philippines. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 79-108). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc. Viray, J. R. B. (n.d.). Federalism: Issues, Risks and Disadvantages. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/2052348/Federalism-Issues-Risks-and-Disadvantages Weekley, K. (2010). Marxism, Nationalism, Globalization, and the Left. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 46-74). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc Proletarian internationalism. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism
