Discussion on Orthodox Marxism

The lecture on the last parts of the 19^th century ideological spectrum continued this meeting. Liberalism tried to veer away from the excessiveness of state intervention, but in doing so the existing system had far reaching repercussions to society. With liberalism, laissez faire was held with the highest virtue. The market system was thought to be the ideal system that should be kept unfazed by any state intervention. However, the same market system further exacerbated the existing societal problems and ever-widening economic inequality. Competition was at the heart of the market system and those who cannot cope with the cut-throat struggle cannot hope to survive. The ideology of Marxism is said to sprout from the belly of liberalist thought. The shift from liberalism to Marxism is caused by the shift of ideology from one period to the next.

Orthodox Marxism becomes an attractive alternative for intellectuals who are flustered with the inequalities that had arisen from the belly of liberalism. In Orthodox Marxism, Marx rejected the metaphysics of human nature. He reasons that materiality ultimately contributes to the consciousness of man. Unlike F. Hegel, Marx argues that man’s consciousness cannot be separated from his body, the same way that an individual cannot be objectively studied if one is removed from one’s society. In the same manner, Marx defined work as paradigm of how man creates himself. It defines human nature for it embodies man’s conscious effort to produce and reproduce life. When it comes to matters concerning the State, Marxism is very sharp on its criticism on the system of Mercantilism. Marx also states that the institution of the State is a historical necessity. Within the State resides a raging hostility amongst the two opposing classes – the affluent bourgeoisie and the oppressed proletariat. Though mercantilism basks in the free market system, it is said to create only limited wealth for the privileged few. The State is said to be in service of these privileged few. And as such, Marxism argues that the ruling class holds the State by its neck. To remedy the societal inequalities caused by liberalism, class struggle is an inevitable step to erode the inequities of the bourgeoisie class. As for the role of the Church, Marxism treats the institution of organized religion as the main antagonist in the class struggle. Marx labelled religion as the opium of the masses since it promotes false consciousness among its members through its deceiving doctrines. Filled with much despair from the abuses of the bourgeoisie, the mass of proletariats often resort to of religion in the hopes of availing of divine justice for their misfortunes from the current system. (03/01/2011)

Ideological & Political Spectrum of the 19th Century

The last leg of the 19^th century ideologies ended with the discussion of Anarchism in today’s lecture. Springing from the Orthodox-Marxist ideology, Anarchism looks at the conception of man, the State, the Church, and the mechanisms of Social Change at a very different perspective. This ideology believes that man is born good. It also proposes that man’s natural selection is not based on competition but rather on mutual co-operation with nature and other beings. Man also has a natural tendency for obedience on the natural law. Lastly, Anarchism believes that man is not born isolated but, on the contrary, is born a very sociable being. As for the State, the ideology of Anarchism looks down on large and organized institutions. Their aversion to these organizations stems from their belief that nothing good can be expected from institutions that uses compulsion and violence to extract conformity from its constituents. The exercise of compulsion and violence thus results to the destruction of an individual’s God-head or good-naturedness. The existence of the State’s governance over the masses of individuals is in direct contradiction with the Anarchist’s idea on salvation, wherein salvation duly resides inside an individual. It is in this regard that Anarchism adheres for the abolition of the State since the government that represents it is impersonal and is very much detached to the nature of man. Anarchism also has an interesting perspective on the role of history. It states that the hand of the dead past should be forgotten and that the present should not be used as the basis for the future.

The aversion of Anarchism to organized social institutions is also shared with the abhorrence towards the Church or any organized religion. Organized religious institutions are said to suppress and kill an individual’s faculty for reasoning, eventually disabling one’s consciousness along with one’s propensity to access one’s spring of ideas. Like Liberalism, Anarchism greatly values man’s individualism, but, unlike Liberalism, Anarchism believes that the virtue of individualism should not be caged within a social institution and should therefore be allowed to grow outside the constraints of institutions like the State and the Church. Social change is likewise believed to be swift without the existence of large and organized institutions. Perhaps one of the major differences of Anarchism with that of Orthodox-Marxism hinges on general will and an individual’s consciousness. Anarchists believe that the desire of an individual for justice is inherent to one’s own nature. This ideology, in effect, rejects the Proletarian revolution of Marxism and, instead, focuses on the individuality of a being. Alienation is also defined as being aware of what one is and the subsequent feeling that what one is is not what one wants to be.

After all discussions on Conservatism, Liberalism, Orthodox-Marxism, and Anarchism, one should very well ask where Rizal, in all of these ideologies, is. Perhaps, Rizal is in the Conservatives’ aristocracy of the elite class and their emphasis on the collectivism. Or maybe, Rizal is in the Liberals’ thrust for social reform by secular and ethical means. Perhaps, the best means to see Rizal in all of these 19^th century ideologies is to seen him as a Liberal who saw liberation in the light of necessary social reforms staged by intellectuals in the elite class. (02/26/2011)

Power in the Context of Rizal's Time

It is said that where science ends, faith begins. But where does faith end when there is no science to begin with?

This was the same dilemma that confronted the 19th century Rizal when he started to address the prevalent Philippine feudal system. The lack of adequate public access to formal education coupled with the dominance of Catholic beliefs not only obscured the archipelago from economically advancing, but also left the Philippines in dire oppression and misery. The ecclesiastical power that ruled at the time had fully integrated its influence over the Filipino natives. The Church served as the supreme suppressor of intelligence, freely imposing its teachings to all who were not conscious of the ubiquitous enslavement of the Filipino minds. Indeed, as this article might briefly discuss, the tangles of the Church that were deeply seated in the normal realms of the Filipino lives encompassed critical social institutions such as education and family.

On a tangent matter, the role of education is highly valued in this context since it raises an individual’s level of consciousness, thus allowing one to clearly see all the cobwebs of the existing power structure one may not have seen before. As discussed in class, the role of a university is not only to churn out capable professionals, but more importantly produce noble human beings. This dual-responsibility of imbibing knowledge while instilling the spirit of nobility is perhaps the reason why the omnipotent Church institution chose to deprive it from the Filipino people. Take it by faith. It is because of this convenient phrase that any curiosity for the truth is immediately trampled. Even the familial institution is held hostage by this omnipresent religious institution. The value of humility is consequently put on a pedestal since Christian doctrine preaches that one who humbles oneself shall be exalted. But as pointed out by Professor Fernandez, what is exactly wrong with self-love or privileging oneself? I would have to agree with Professor Fernandez sentiment that, unlike the Catholic doctrine, one who exults oneself shall be exulted. How can an individual hope to better oneself if one does not recognize one’s own success? Isn’t self-love the backbone of development? With these submissive Catholic doctrines being promulgated, it does not come as a big surprise that an ignorant, excessively timid, submissive, and ultimately an oppressed nation is made.

Reading the fourth chapter of Rizal’s Fili made me sympathize even more emphatically with the plight of Kabesang Tales. He embodies the frustration of all hardworking Filipinos during the time of Rizal where a native almost always have to prostrate oneself to the presence of the Spanish colonizers. Though the blood of his departed wife and daughter cultivated his family’s land, his property was mercilessly expropriated from him. Even his father, Tandang Selo, bitterly advised him that a clay cauldron should never challenge an iron cauldron for the fear of the Church wrath over those who challenge them. The deplorable Philippine feudal society has no chance of ever progressing to capitalism if these oppressive practices are allowed to continue further. Given all these things, I now understand why Rizal gives utmost importance to freeing oneself from the bondage of ignorance and setting oneself free by means of education. (02/24/2011)

Consciousness, Enlightenment & Regret

Professor Fernandez started today’s discussion with a thought-provoking question, a question that every student should consider when one is about to enter college. Should education be geared towards getting a high-paying job or should it also be geared towards learning an individual’s nobility? Beneath this profound question is an inquiry as to what an individual should focus on. Should one be concerned with enriching oneself financially but pay the steep price for one’s own ignorance of the social factors one chooses to turn a blind side to? Or should a student also immerse oneself with the learning of nobility and respect? Such is a dilemma every student would have to contend and eventually learn with the brevity of their tertiary education. If indeed a person chooses to ignore these truths that will inevitably lead to the realization of the existence of the bases of power and the tool of class analysis. An individual will consequently question all his cherished beliefs. One will then ask who is powerful and who is in charge in their society. Paramount was the disgust and reproach of Rizal toward his fellow compatriots in Europe who instead of enriching themselves with academic wisdom, chose to frolic in the luxuries found in the foreign shores. They were in the position to make a difference in the lives of the millions of Filipinos living in misery under the abusive Spanish colony. These illustrados had the means to make the necessary reforms for the betterment of their homeland, but they chose to retard their having getting an education and, in the process, waste away their opportunity to change the enslaving ideology at the time.

Class, as defined by Marxism-Leninism thought, is the ensemble of similar characteristics in relation to the existing mode of production. A person living in a Capitalist society is either an owner of the factors of production or not; one is either the oppressive bourgeoisie or is the oppressed proletariat. With ownership, there is power such that ownership of these factors enables an individual can translate their power over the rest of the disempowered society.

With the twenty-fifth anniversary of the EDSA Revolution coming nearer and nearer, the need for evaluating the said historical event becomes ever so clear. Was the EDSA revolution the gift of the Filipino nation to the rest of the world? Who orchestrated this uprising – was it the lower class, the middle or is it the master plan of the big businesses that were losing out because of Marcos’ policies? Wasn’t Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law the right of the State for it to maintain the existing democracy? And wasn’t it supposed to address the existing imbalance of the wealth distribution in the country? Moreover, who were not benefiting from the current system – wasn’t it not these big business Marcos shot down? But really, if one looks closer to the pages of history, one would see that President Marcos was really on the Filipinos’ side. His policies, though unpopular, were crafted to lessen the foreign dominance in most of the local industries. Another more interesting question, why did the Catholic Church supported the EDSA revolution? In order for the Catholic Church to maintain their influence over their constituents and ultimately, their grasp for power, it was necessary for this institution to embrace the system that was the most destructive – imperialism. Come to think of it, it was a Machiavellian decision for the Church to give their support to a revolution that would undo Marcos’ truly nationalistic policies back to the deplorable state where the richer becomes even richer while the poor rots away in their misery. Their end truly justified their veiled means. As the country prepares to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of EDSA, shouldn’t we, as a sovereign people, face the hard truth and answer these tough questions we have so far neglected for a quarter of a century? Now that’s the truth we all have to face. (02/22/2011)

Analysing the Power Structure of Rizal’s Characters in his novels

Today’s lecture was a continuation of the previous meeting’s discussion of the power model. The different characters of Rizal’s two novels were deeply scrutinized. First, it was confirmed that it was indeed the Dominican P. Sibyla who served the Franciscan P. Damaso his much-disgusted chicken tinola with only a neck and lots of chayote. This event signified the rivalry existing between the different religious orders in the colonial Philippines. These orders would always fight over key parishes where the municipality is resource-filled and cash-strapped. Being a parish priest during those times was a big business for these orders. Such was the scenario found, not only in Rizal’s Noli and Fili, but also in real-life Philippines. It would come to the surprise of many that there exists a Visitation Order that prohibits religious orders or sometimes called corporations to hold the position of parish-priest in any town in the archipelago. By mandate of this order, only secular priest are allowed to hold this position. A tragic fate met the GomBurZa priests when they tried to uphold this order. Their struggle to raise their complaints for the supposed breach of the corporations was met with much politicization and ultimately ended with their martyrdom. Second, Donya Victorina had always been seen as a very powerful persona in both novels. With her enormous wealth, she was able to bestow upon a handicapped and stuttering Spanish commoner, Don Tiburcio Espadaña, with a medical title. Donya Victorina also commanded considerable administrative power over her beautiful nephew, Paulita Gomez. She was also known to never back down against arguments and, lastly, she was popularly known as a social climber. Third, Donya Consolacion can be considered as the Donya Victorina of the lower-class. Fourth, the power structure of the Philippine society was said to resemble the two decks of the Bapor Tabo. There is only one criterion that determines who travels comfortably in the upper deck and who toils in the discomfort of the lower deck. Spaniards occupy the upper deck whereas the Filipinos and Chinese merchants are in the lower deck. The past Philippine colonial society is reflects the stark racial discrimination against the non-whites. On the upper deck, Don Custodio talked about his ambitious plan of raising more ducks that would make the ilog Pasig deeper and faster. On the other hand, Donya Victorina argued that indios would become more barbaric if this proposal would push through. Simon boldly dared them to maximize the use of the compulsory Polo system to implement the massive undertaking of deepening Pasig River. When challenged with the threat of social unrest among the indios, Simon simply retorted the question, ‘What are you in power for?’ In the meanwhile, the lower deck, though was filled with the marginalized indios and Chinese merchants, still possessed significant negative power for their part. This power was raised with Isagani’s challenge to Simon of how strong water can be when it is made into steam.

Etched in all Rizal’s satirical class analysis of the existing power structure is the implicit imposition of these values: humility, excessive timidness, and ignorance, values which the Catholic Church has consistently preached to its blind faithful. Donya Victorina was negatively labelled as a social climber. In the eyes of the Church, her motives were misdirected and were not in line with their teachings of humility. As a result, her authoritative disposition was inadvertently chastised by much of the religious educational institutions that teach Rizal’s Noli. Isn’t it a desirable trait for Filipino women to be more empowered? Didn’t Rizal create Donya Victorina to illustrate that empowered women in his time were mocked and was often seen as seen as evil? This particular realisation is properly attributed to the revealing work of Professor Fernandez. I do think that with her sharing this without the class, we would have continued our lives still chastising Donya Victorina’s show authority over the Spanish colonizers. (02/17/2011)