National Independence: Illusion and Counter-revolutionary
Walang malayang bansa sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo
Nanawagan ang rehimeng Arroyo na ipagdiwang ang anibersaryo ng araw ng “kalayaan” ngayong Hunyo 12 habang tinuligsa naman ito ng Kaliwang paksyon ng burgesya dahil hanggang ngayon “hindi malaya” ang Pilipinas mula sa kontrol ng mga dayuhan partikular ng imperyalistang Amerika.
Magkatunggali man ang dalawang paksyon ng burgesya sa Pilipinas sa usapin kung malaya o hindi ang bansa, nagkakaisa naman sila na posible pang lalaya ang isang bansa sa panahon ng imperyalismo. Katunayan, ayon sa Kaliwa, ito ang “sentral na usapin sa anti-imperyalistang pakikibaka”.
Nagmula sa baluktot at kontra-rebolusyonaryong pag-unawa sa katangian ng imperyalismo kaya walang pag-aalinlangan ang iba’t-ibang grupo ng Kaliwa na suportahan ang lahat ng mga kilusan na lumalaban sa imperyalistang Amerika sa kabila ng katotohanan na ang mga kilusang ito (gaya ng Hamas, Hizbollah at Iraqi Resistance) ay suportado din ng ibang mga imperyalistang kapangyarihan na karibal ng Estados Unidos gaya ng Iran, Syria, China, Venezuela at Cuba. Ang ilan sa Kaliwa ay naniniwala pa nga na isang “rebolusyonaryo” at “progresibo” ang panatiko at pundamentalistang grupo ni Bin Laden dahil ito ay sagad-saring anti-Amerika!
Habang ang nagharing paksyon ay nagsasabing nakamit na ng bansa ang kalayaan noong 1946 ang kabilang paksyon naman ay nagsasabing hindi pa malaya ang Pilipinas hanggang ngayon kaya patuloy itong naghihirap at atrasado.
Pambansang kalayaan: Panawagan ng burgesya laban sa pyudalismo
Batay sa makauring pagsusuri, ang pambansang kasarinlan ay kahilingan ng burgesya para wasakin ang pyudal na kaayusan. Kailangan ng uring kapitalista para sa kanyang pampulitikang paghari ang isang depinidong teritoryo na paghati-hatian nila sa pandaigdigang saklaw. Mahalaga ito para sa malayang kalakalan at kompetisyon ng bawat paksyon ng burgesya.
Kaya sa 18 at 19 siglo, ang makabayang adhikain ay pinangunahan ng bagong sibol na uring mapagsamantala na nagdadala ng bago at progresibong moda ng produksyon – kapitalismo. Ang panawagang pagtatayo ng bansa sa mga siglong nabanggit ang buod para makabig ng burgesya ang iba pang mga uri gaya ng magsasaka at peti-burgesya laban sa pyudalismo. Sa ilalim ng mga islogang “pagkapantay-pantay, kapatiran at kalayaan” nagtagumpay ang mga burges na rebolusyon noon.
Dahil progresibo at nasa pasulong na yugto pa ang kapitalismo sa 18 at 19 siglo, naging pampabilis ng pag-unlad ng produktibong mga pwersa ang pagtatayo ng mga bansa gaya ng Amerika at Alemanya. Sa madaling sabi, ang makabayang adhikain noon ay progresibo para sa pagsulong ng lipunan. Kaya sinusuportahan ito ng uring proletaryado sa kabila ng katotohanan na hindi ito ang kanilang makauri at istorikal na interes.
Sa pagpasok ng 20 siglo kung saan ganap ng nasakop ng kapitalismo ang buong daigdig at nabuo at nasagad na ang pandaigdigang pamilihan, nagbago na ang katangian ng kapitalismo: umabot na ito sa rurok ng kanyang pag-unlad bilang moda ng produksyon at nasa bukang-liwayway na ng kanyang pagbulusok-pababa. Hindi na progresibo ang kapital kundi ganap ng naging reaksyonaryo at bangkarota na. Ibayong kahirapan at pagkasira ng mundo ang tanging maibibigay nito.
Sa dekadenteng kapitalismo: “Pambansang kalayaan” ilusyon na lang at kontra-rebolusyonaryo ang katangian
Sa kasalukuyang panahon ng permanenteng krisis ng pandaigdigang kapitalismo kung saan ganap ng nagapos sa kapitalistang relasyon ang lahat ng mga bansa, ang usapin ng “malayang” bansa ay isa na lang ilusyon at ginawang instrumento ng naghaharing uri para panatilihing buhay ang naaagnas na sistema. Sa ngalan ng nasyunalismo at pagtatanggol sa inangbayan nangyari ang karumal-dumal na mga digmaan na pumapatay ng daang milyong mamamayan.
Sa panahon ng dekadenteng kapitalismo — kung saan ang pananatili ng isang bansa ay nakasandig sa kanyang pagsasamantala sa ibang mga bansa; sa ilalim ng tumitinding kompetisyon sa ilalim ng sagad na pandaigdigang pamilihan, ang mahihina ay aapakan ng malalakas, ang mahihina ay kokontrolin ng mas makapangyarihan, at higit sa lahat, ang bawat pambansang kapital ay nagpapaligsahan na maungusan ang mga karibal nito sa kompetisyon sa pandaigdigang pamilihan – isang panlilinlang ang malayang bansa at pagkapantay-pantay ng mga bansa.
Subalit dahil hindi syentipiko at marxista ang paninindigan ng Kaliwa laluna ng mga maoista, naniniwala ito na kung “mapalaya” ang Pilipinas sa mga kuko ng imperyalistang Kano, uunlad ang pambansang kapital ng bansa at matutupad ang pangarap ng burgesyang Pilipino na “this nation can be great again!”.
Ang aktwal na resulta ng kasaysayan ng “napalayang” mga bansa magmula 1914 ang patunay na isang panlilinlang at bitag ang usapin ng pambansang kalayaan dahil ang mga bansang ito ay naging tuta o sunud-sunuran din sa mas makapangyarihang imperyalista na karibal ng pinatalsik nila sa kanilang mga bansa. Halimbawa nito: Pinatalsik ng China ang imperyalistang Amerika sa 1949 subalit hinawakan naman sila ng imperyalistang USSR; kumawala ito sa pangil ng USSR subalit bumalik din sa kandungan ng Amerika sa 1970s. Ngayon, isang nag-aambisyong imperyalistang kapangyarihan na ang China. Pinatalsik ng Vietnam ang mga Kano noong 1975 subalit magmula dekada 1990 bumalik ulit ito sa “mapagkaibigang” relasyon sa Amerika. Isang anti-imperyalistang Kano ang bansang Venezuela sa ilalim ni Hugo Chavez pero kumukuha ito ng “pampulitikang gabay” sa Cuba at nagsisikap makontrol ang buong Central at Latin America kakutsaba ito.
Ang pinakahuling modelo ng “tagumpay” ng pambansang pagpapalaya ay ang Nepal na kontrolado na ngayon ng mga maoista at naibagsak na nila ang pagharing monarkiya. Subalit lingid sa kaalaman ng marami, nakasandal ang mahinang Nepal sa malakas na imperyalistang China. Ginamit ng huli ang una laban sa kanyang karibal na imperyalistang India. Hindi tiyak kung hanggang kalian manatili sa kapangyarihan ng paksyon ng mga maoista. Pero ang tiyak, hindi uunlad ang Nepal bilang bansa sa ilalim ng dekadenteng kapitalistang kaayusan. Hindi maglalaho sa Nepal ang pagsasamantala, bagkus lalo pa itong lalala.
Ang “pambansang kilusan” at nasyunalismo ngayon ay hindi na laban sa pyudal na kaayusan dahil sa kataposan ng 19 siglo ay nawasak na sa pangkalahatan ang pyudal na paghari. Sa halip, ang mga ito ay pananggalang ng isang paksyon ng burgesya para makabig nito ang buong populasyon laban sa karibal na paksyon kung saan ang kanilang kompetisyon ay umabot na sa kompetisyon at labanang militar at digmaan.
Hindi makaligtas ang Pilipinas sa istorikal na batas ng dekadenteng kapitalismo. Matapos mapatalsik ang imperyalistang Kano, tiyak mamimili na lang ang burgesyang Pilipino kung alin sa mga karibal na imperyalistang kapangyarihan magpatuta ito – China? Russia? Germany?
Tanging ang proletryong rebolusyon lamang ang daan papunta sa tunay na pag-unlad hindi ng bansa kundi ng lipunan mismo; hindi ng isang uri lamang kundi ng buong sangkatauhan sa isang komunistang lipunan na walang mga uri.
Sa ngayon, ang “pakikibaka para sa pambansang kalayaan” at ang pag-iilusyon na may kalayaan sa ilalim ng kapitalistang kaayusan ay mga hadlang para sa pagsulong ng isang pandaigdigang kilusan para sa isang tunay na malayang sangkatauhan at lipunan.
Hindi “pakikibaka para sa pambansang kalayaan at demokrasya” ang nagdadala ng makauring interes ng uring manggagawa o kahit man lang daan papunta doon kundi ang internasyunal na rebolusyon ng proletaryado para sa komunismo.
Ang tunay na anti-imperyalistang linya ay ang linya laban sa kapitalismo (lokal man o dayuhan, pambansang kapitalista man o dayuhan ). Ang linyang ito ay komunistang rebolusyon wala ng iba pa.
You do not have a broad insight on the Maoist People’s War. Instead you call them with unknown “hear-say” perspective, like associating them with chinese or indian imperialism. Can you get any more scientific, we can’t understand idiots from the ICC, seriously.
Comment by maoist — June 23, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
The GRP govt is an U.$. imperialist client state. Hell, do you even know what is the meaning of neocolonialism? the people’s movement led by the proletarian party must be focused on destroying the puppet state and imperialism, only with these means there can be socialist construction. When third world states(their proletarians) get loose from the chains of capitalism-imperialism they stop selling surplus labor to the imperialists and its lackeys.
Actually there is nothing to point out here. Your “left” wing “communist” “Marxist” thoughts still remained as thoughts, and has never been tested through the revolutionary scientific application. Do you think you can achieve communism by sitting your fat lard asses in front of computers? Why don’t you organize and go in an all out armed insurrection?
Attacking the Maoists only make you look like imperialist puppets since they are the sole forces that hurt imperialism other than militant Islam. Instead of uniting with the revolutionary forces you go into your all round bullshit criticism while pondering into your untested abstract ideology.
Comment by maoist — June 23, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
can we even post comments that go over 50 words. Your website is full of shit!
Comment by maoist — June 23, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
I think the people behind this blog has a better knowledge of maoism than you mr/ms “maoist”. I may suggest that you should rebut their position on issues that yoy differ with in a “gentleman” manner not of insults and attacks that have no bearing whatsoever to the points they raised. People like you are a shame to the marxists. You cannot even defend yourself against the criticisms. You only hide with your “scientifiic” babbling without any elaboration. If you really know marxism, you should also know the way Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc polemize with thier oppoents.
Comment by Jose — June 23, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
Yes the comrades of Internasyonalismo have a vast collective experience of Maoism and I dare to add that their collective experience in engaging in the so called peoples’ war is something that should be respected. Many of the comrades are from a maoist tradition and it is precisely that experience combined with a developed understanding of Marxism and a recognition of the material conditions of Philippine and world society under capitalism that led these comrades to abandon Maoism to establish Left Communism as a tendency of thought here. For that I have absolute respect. Comrade Maoist should also.
I also agree that the sectarian slanders against the Left Communist cadre is against the Marxist tradition of debate. In typical maoist style it is you are not with us u are against us. Arrogant nonsense typical of a sectarian group with no tradition in the proletarian struggle.
The first test of communism in practice is of course Russia 1917, the Left Communists being part of the Bolsheviks and internatuionally on the side of that and their own revolutions, Germany, Italy etc. The significance of LC is in the critique of the failure of that revolution and its movement to the counter-revolution.
Let us look at where maoism was actually practiced and that is of course China. What can we say about China.
1. Not a socialist state but a national capitalist revolution. It overthrew feudalism but moved almost immediately to state capitalism. All industry and agriculture under the direct control of the state. The state being in control of the party. The relationship of the proletariat and peasantry was economically as provision of surplus value to the state.
2. In order to achieve power the CPC necessarily usurped control of the revolution from the proletariat and in the name of the people - in the service of the people. All independent working class organisations and action was and is ruthlessly repressed. In order to achieve power the working class as an indipendet force has to be destroyed - see also Vitenam, Laos, Kampuchea etc…
3. The natural conclusion of the development was as we see today - state capitalism in the service of the party and the apparatchiks with a small indipendent bourgeois. Mao would have approved of the ZTE deal no doubt.
4. Mao dropped all pretence to being a socialist after the 1927 revolution. From there on it was national liberation and capitalism. I suggest that comrade Maoist read Mao.
As to the arguments on Philippines. the nature of the comrade’s argument is that we are semi feudal that capitalism is not strong enough to develop because of the influence of US imperialism that makes Philippines a chattel state. Even though th4e CPP recognises that the generalised mode of production is capitalism but because of the lack of mechanisation we must be still considered as a feudal nation!
Please add Korea, China, Japan and Philippines and Malaysia to the list of imperialisms. Remember Bangsamoro. You forget here the argument of all Marxists from Lenin (please excuse Trotsky from the list) on the question of the decadence of capitalism that all nations are either greater or lesser imperialists given the exhaustion of pre-capitalist markets. Neo-colonialism in that sense is a liberal analysis to divert attention form the internationalism of the working class in favor of national liberation struggles for their own national ‘progressive’ bourgeois. It is a nonsense argument. It espouses that there can and needs to be a capitalist national revolution as opposed to socialism which is of course international. It is actually a liberal argument co-opted by stalinists to justify their nationalism.
In all this the comrade as with Mao rejects the Russian revolution and the lessons thereof. Remember comrade we were dealing with a nation where the proletariat was a tiny fraction of the populace and the nature of the country was as a chattel state of european capitalism and was itself an imperialist state. Please refer to Lenin on the rights of nations to self determination for this. This did not stop the prolertariat from gaining power and moving - albeit under the distress of Totsky and Lenin in the leadership and their errors - to spread the revolution internationaly.
The comrade obviously denies the law of combined and uneven development in favor of capitalist formal logic in that what is necessary for Philippines in a bourgeois national revolution before at some stage when capitalism is developed (200 years i believe Joma once stated) we can move to socialism.
All our dear Comrade states is that he is in favor of a national capitalist revolution. All our comrade supports is a faction of the ‘national’ bourgeois in coming to power. As if it isn’t already in control - or one section is.
Comment by Juan — June 24, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Thank you “marxist” bitches from the ICC,
I firmly stand in my later statement that this site is still full of shit. Plus, don’t you know how “left” “communism” was a corpse ideology along with “trotskyism” and other things that certain number of individualist couch potatoes who see themselves as “better” “revolutionaries” can feed the proletariat with, unfortunately, the wretehced of the earth don’t buy it. Your cause has little or almost nothing to call as mass support here in the Philippines.
And here it is, instead of uniting with the revolutionary movement, you attack us with your vague shit criticisms, and call us fighting for “national capitalist revolution”. Revolution isn’t a ballet dance, waging revolution is a reality for us, and still bitches from ICC attack us with theri “better” “analysis”. All of you haven’t even shed a drop of sweat nor blood for the proletarian rev.So fuck off.
People like you of the “rejectionist” type had nothing else to do but to create confusion and deviation in the Philippine condition, just like the “marxist-leninists” of the RPA(who call us “stalinists” or “maoists” just like all the rest of you here), the rj trotskyists, and other petite bullshit organizations that acts as agents of counter-revolution and imperialism.
Our differnces are polar, we have been considering you as enemies since Lenin was alive. So god damn the sectarian “left” “communists” who are nothing but petite bourgeois pigs to the core.
Comment by maoist — June 26, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
You are better as bourgeois historians they say. Why not show up yourselves in the real form? Your organizations are anti-CPP/NPA, therefore you are anti-marxism leninism, you are counter-revolutionary, you are revisionists, you are supposedly dialectical materialists but you fix imperialism’s dirty laundry. You are the enemies of the oppressed and exploited.
Comment by maoist — June 26, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
certainly not marxist. Bit quite pro-imperialist and counter-revoluitonary indeed. I guess it ends here.
Comment by maoist — June 26, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Mao was the biggest ally of US imperialism. China is the world’s sweat shop because of Maoism. China is the perfect example of “real existing maoism” having completed its two-stage revolution - two stages, both capitalist. Which imperialist power do you think comrade Prachanda’s government will grovel to? China? India? Russia? Maybe the US? It all depends on which power offers his government the most in the way of increased wealth. Maoism has always acted as imperialism’s whore, even to the point of stabbing the USSR in the back and entering into an alliance with the US.
Comment by mir zaynen do! — July 15, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
There wasnt even a real proletarian party during the 1970s in the U$$R. “Soviet” union and the U$ where both imperialist.
Idiots from your sect uphold current China still as “maoist”. we are not getting theough anywhere with this pro-imperilaist bullshit as espoused by the pseudo-Marxists. not to mention how impossible a communist revlution is with the people of your type to lead the way, you are not even scientific to add. I suggest you review Das Kapital since you have aleady forgot it.
Comment by melsm — July 17, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Tignan niyo. may ruso pang nagpapasikat ng kanyang pasismong “sobyet”. Nakakatawa. Ito na nga ang kaisang prente laban sa komunismo sa cyberspace. Mr. Admin. sana matauhan kayo sa blog ninyong walang kabuluhan at walang silbi sa pakikibaka ng proletaryado. Petiburgis ka gago. Ayoko na magpost naawa na ako, ako lang ata napansin sa basura ninyo.
Comment by Pulang Tala — July 19, 2008 @ 10:53 pm