|
Review by Judge Ad Litem Atty.
Romneo Capulong
Presiden, Public Interest Law
Center
Launching of Jose Maria
Sison’s Book
Book I
Justice, Socialism and Peace
When I was invited by Aklat ng Bayan to make a review of Book 1 of the
Selected Writings of Prof. Jose Maria Sison, I expressed initial
reluctance. And for good reasons. Firstly, because despite being a
long-time human rights lawyer who defended many of the leaders of the left
on both sides of the RA-RJ divide and one of the defense lawyers of the
author himself in the celebrated cases against him here and abroad, I felt
I was not theoretically equipped to write such review. Secondly, I believe
that an informed review of Prof. Sison’s scholarly writings require a
certain level of revolutionary experience on the part of the reviewer.
But I surmise that probably because I do not have such credentials that
the sponsors of this project chose me to do this difficult task. Indeed,
many erroneously believe that Prof. Sison’s writings are good reading only
for socialist scholars, political activists, revolutionaries and psy-war
experts of the Pentagon and the Philippine government. For this reason,
the launching of this book is timely and relevant at this period of global
economic crisis and political turmoil. It is appropriate and useful
because as the author himself had predicted long before the current
recession, the world today is in a state of serious economic disorder; the
sufferings of the peoples of the world have reached unprecedented severity
and the level of consciousness and resistance of the oppressed and
exploited classes against the prevailing social and economic system is
steadily rising to new heights.
It is often said and, unfortunately, there is ample basis for this
criticism, that our educational system has been designed by our colonial
masters. And for this reason, it is heavily biased towards producing
graduates who serve the interests of the upper classes of Philippine
society and foreign interests. With due respect to my colleagues in the
bar and the bench, this is particularly true among lawyers.
Relevant to this statement, I recall that in November 1970 after being
immersed for twelve years in traditional politics and law practice, I had
the privilege (or probably the not so honorable opportunity as I now look
back at this stage of my political life) of getting elected and serving in
the 1971 Constitutional Convention representing the first district of my
home province of Nueva Ecija. I naively believed then that this
constitutional convention showed a lot of promise.
After being out of touch with progressive politics and the academe for a
long time, I knew I needed to update and prepare myself to work in that
convention with former presidents of the republic (Diosdado Macapagal and
Carlos Garcia), former senators, cabinet members and ambassadors, the
promising young politicians at that time like Nene Pimentel, Tito
Guingona, Richard Gordon, Edgardo Angara and Hilario Davide, Jr., to name
a few, and even my very own venerable Dean Vicente Sinco of the UP College
of Law.
Concomitant to this sense of unpreparedness, I selected a law professor
classmate as a consultant who recruited two young activists and former
editors of the Philippine Collegian into my staff. To be candid, I was
completely unaware that by a strange twist of fate and serendipity, the
Office of Delegate Romeo T. Capulong to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, unwittingly became a safe-house of Jose Maria Sison’s
followers. This incident introduced me to the author’s writings and to
progressive literature in general or at least the basic teachings and
principles, enough to enable me to understand the roots of the problems of
Philippine society and the correct program to address them. Fortunately,
(or unfortunately to some well-meaning relatives and friends of mine who
see in my present impoverished condition as a sign of bad politics and
meaningless law practice) this incident also introduced me to the politics
of Jose Maria Sison.
I have been tasked to review Prof. Sison’s twelve articles and speeches on
justice, socialism and peace for Book I of the series covering the period
from 1991-1995. I dare say that the breadth and depth of these three
topics encompass the entire gamut of the writer’s life-time revolutionary
work and commitment, manifested in his fifty years of selfless service to
the national democratic struggle and to the Filipino people.
At the outset, let me state in a nutshell Prof. Sison’s most significant
contribution to the Filipino people’s struggle for a just society and to
the struggle of humanity against US imperialism and the forces of
reaction. In his lectures and writings including the twelve articles in
Book I and in his revolutionary work, the author consistently teaches us
that Philippine society is semi-colonial and semi-feudal and that the
three evils of Philippine society are US imperialism, feudalism and
bureaucrat capitalism.
In a paper entitled “Strengthen the Alliance for Human Rights in the
National Democratic Movement” which was presented to the First National
Congress of KARAPATAN on August 17, 1995 he firmly stated: “So long as the
semi-colonial and semi-feudal ruling system persists, the toiling masses
of workers and peasants and the middle social strata are exploited and
oppressed. Their human rights – civil and political as well as economic,
social and cultural – are unceasingly violated by the imperialists and the
exploiting classes of big compradors and landlords.”
Based on this analysis of Philippine society as semi-colonial and
semi-feudal Prof. Sison advocated as early as 1968 and consistently
maintained the revolutionary line that there has been no qualitative
change in this status, and the Philippine revolution must be national
democratic in character that seeks the liberation of the Filipino people
from foreign and feudal oppression and exploitation. He explained that
this type of revolution seeks to assert national sovereignty against US
imperialism and its Filipino puppets and fulfills the democratic
aspirations of the peasants for land and to uphold the democratic rights
of the broad masses against all forms of tyranny. And although the
national democratic program is socialist in perspective and orientation,
real socialist construction can begin only after the seizure of political
power thru the victory of the national democratic revolution.
The author believes that to deviate from this analysis and line will
derail the Philippine revolution. At crucial junctures of the national
democratic revolution, Prof Sison eloquently and successfully defended
this position against revisionism and insurrectionism. In his contribution
to the Conference on Socialism and The New World Order, the author said:
“All Marxist-Leninists recognize that there must be a comprehensive,
scientific view of things as precondition for taking the proletarian
revolutionary stand, viewpoint and method. But there are those who
systematically take a rightist or bourgeois stand, viewpoint and method
and capitalize and speculate on that side of the objective reality which
serves them.”
The author’s writings are rich and illuminating in the analysis and
denunciation of all forms of revisionism in the communist parties in the
Philippines, in the USSR and in the People’s Republic of China (PROC). His
critiques extend to both the communist parties still engaged in the
revolution such as the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) which he founded and the ruling
communist parties in the USSR and the PROC. On November 7, 1990 shortly
after the collapse of the USSR he wrote: “Even at its best, the
proletarian revolutionary party contains a certain amount of unremoulded
petty bourgeois and certain degree of bourgeois thinking. The unremoulded
petty bourgeois is the social base of subjectivist and opportunist errors
which are either put under restraint, rectification and repudiation or
allowed to thrive in a party that is bound to degenerate and
disintegrate.”
But in the same breadth, he conceded that “the revolutionary party of the
proletariat cannot strengthen itself, cannot seize power and cannot build
socialism if it fails to win over the petty bourgeoisie in society and if
it does not recruit into the party those elements of petty bourgeois
origin and socio-economic status who are willing to remould themselves
into proletarian revolutionaries and render service to the proletariat and
people” because “the petty bourgeois possesses the intellectual,
professional and technical capabilities” which are vital to the
revolutionary struggle rather than be used by the big bourgeoisie for the
functioning of capitalism
In the same article, Prof. Sison pointedly concluded:
“The disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and the sham
socialist regimes and the collapse of the Soviet Union demonstrate so
clearly that these have resulted from a certain sequence of events: the
premature declaration of the end of class struggle between the proletariat
and bourgeoisie within socialist society; the conversion of the new
intelligentsia and bureaucracy into a huge mass of petty bourgeoisie; the
role of this new petty bourgeoisie as the social base for the rise of
bureaucratism, modern revisionism and the bureaucrat monopoly bourgeoisie;
and the adoption of political economic and cultural policies of so-called
reforms to restore capitalism and ultimately to disintegrate the
revisionist ruling party and regime.”
My friends, I believe you will agree with me if I say that our review of
the writings of the author will not be complete if we do not highlight his
comprehensive and illuminating justification of armed struggle as the
principal form of struggle to win the Philippine revolution. And in this
regard, let me digress a bit by reiterating my humble submission on this
sensitive and even risky issue which I have often publicly stated in
various fora and even in the courtroom - an issue which, understandably,
most social activists in the legal mass movement would prefer to avoid
taking a public position.
I believe that the necessity of an armed struggle to topple a
well-entrenched repressive government and dismantle an oppressive and
exploitative social order is a scientific study by revolutionary thinkers
and scholars. And no one, least of all from the ruling elites and the
beneficiaries of the existing unjust and inhumane system, has the superior
authority to make a judgment on this crucial weapon of the people by
invoking the framework of morality and legality. After all, armed struggle
is a political question and a historical fact.
In a February 1993 paper entitled “On the Question of Revolutionary
Violence” presented to the League of Filipino Students (LFS) our writer
said:
“In any exploitative society, whether slave, feudal or bourgeois, the
state is the highest form of political organization, whose class character
is determined by the dominant exploiting class and is used by it to coerce
other classes into submission.”
He concluded that:
“In an exploitative class society, the state is essentially an instrument
of class coercion, of class dictatorship, in the hands of the dominant
exploiting class. It consists of the army, police, courts and prisons.
These are employed by the ruling class to enjoy the freedom to exploit the
ruled classes and to pretend using solely the means of suasion, like the
schools, the mass media, the church and other institutions, the electoral
competition, the legislative process and so on to keep the social order.”
The author believes firmly that what should be exposed, condemned and
resisted is not revolutionary violence per se but the more severe violence
of poverty, injustice and lack of genuine freedom and national sovereignty
under the present system.
On the question of peace, Prof. Sison wrote on the subject two articles in
June 1991 entitled “Two Articles on the People’s Struggle for a Just
Peace.” It is a brilliant and comprehensive dissertation on the subject
that shows the author’s depth and analytical mind, revolutionary
experience, ability to grasp and learn lessons from history, wisdom and
vision. The two articles were written seventeen years ago, and almost
exactly one year before the start of the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines (GRP) – National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP)
peace negotiations with the execution on September 1, 1992 and subsequent
approval at the highest levels of leadership of the two parties of the
landmark Hague Joint Declaration that resolved the difficult issue of
framework of peace negotiations.
As we all know, the current stalled GRP-NDFP peace negotiations has been
on-going officially for the past seventeen years. Seventeen (17) bilateral
documents have already been approved and binding upon both parties to the
peace negotiations, among which are the Hague Joint Declaration, Joint
Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Comprehensive
Agreement on Respect For Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
(CARHRIHL). To be fair, all these seventeen bilateral agreements were
approved after lengthy and thorough discussions and debates, patience,
determination and hard work on the part of the two negotiating panels,
their consultants, staff and the highest officials and decision-making
bodies of both parties. These documents after all lead to and traverse the
right path to a just and lasting peace. But to be candid and clear also,
anyone who studies these documents and their corresponding minutes and
transcripts of the proceedings will readily see the unmistakable imprints
therein of the two articles of Prof. Sison.
The two articles, among others, comprehensively discuss the correct
framework of mutually acceptable principles of the peace negotiations that
does not require surrender, capitulation or submission to the political
authority of one party to the other, define the tactical and strategic
relationship between the peace process and the painstaking revolutionary
work in the field, warns against the pitfalls and continuing agenda of the
GRP, stresses historical lessons, the appropriate role of third parties,
cease-fire, sincerity of the NDFP and time-frame of the peace
negotiations, foreign venue and, most important, the strategic line of the
national democratic revolution as the path to a just and lasting peace.
As an opening statement, the two articles forcefully emphasizes at the
outset that:
“A just and lasting peace is possible only if the Filipino people’s demand
for national liberation and democracy is satisfied. It is the outcome of
the people’s revolutionary struggle. It goes without saying that the
national democratic revolution is at once the struggle for a just and
lasting peace. The strategic line of this revolution which is to complete
the struggle for national liberation and democracy, is the same strategic
line that the NDF has to pursue in seeking a just and lasting peace.
There can be no other strategic line. To say that the NDF does not have
such a line in seeking peace negotiations is to suggest another line or to
confuse the line. To engage in peace negotiations, without addressing the
roots of the armed conflict and without seeking substantial satisfaction
of the people’s demands for national liberation and democracy, is to
create confusion and even fall into capitulation.
The two articles trace the history of peace negotiations in the
Philippines from the pre-colonial times, the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, the
neo-colonial compromise between the Philippine commonwealth government and
the US, the Quirino-Taruc amnesty and truce agreement of the PKP, the
peace overtures of Ferdinand Marcos, and the Tripoli Agreement.
On localized peace initiatives and zones of peace often initiated by
supposedly neutral third parties, the writer warns against its dangers to
the revolutionary movement, thus:
“True to its revolutionary principles, the NDF does not accept the GRP
Constitution as the sole and one sided legal and political frame of
negotiations and refuses to be drawn at the outset to the line of
“restoring trust and confidence in GRP.” Neither does the NDF demand that
the GRP submit itself to the NDF Constitution and Program. Instead, the
NDF proposes such mutually acceptable principles as national sovereignty,
democracy, social justice and the like and the agreements still to be made
as the legal and political frame of negotiations.”
“The NDF is opposed to the scheme of any particular organization or
institution, posing as third force morally superior to the contending
parties in the civil war and claiming the people for itself, to focus on
areas where the NDF and its member-organizations (especially the New
People’s Army) as well as people’s organs of political power exists; seek
to push out or paralyze these popular entities; picture the NPA as a force
unwanted by the people as the AFP; but in fact to uphold the political
authority of the GRP. Proposals for “localized peace dialogues,”
“localized ceasefires,” community-based peace” and “zones of peace, zones
of life” are calculated to undermine and fragment the revolutionary
movement and run counter to the proposal for GRP-NDF bilateral peace talks
at the national level.”
Today, the Macapagal-Arroyo government has been sloganeering its position
in the GRP-NDFP peace process that talks can resume only if the NDFP
agrees to the so-called DDR or demobilization, disarmament and
rehabilitation. This pre-condition, as we can readily see, is unreasonable
and out-rightly unacceptable and contrary to the explicit provisions of
the Hague Joint Declaration that prescribes the framework of the peace
negotiations as mutually acceptable principles and put end of hostilities
and disposition of forces as the fourth item in the substantive agenda
after agreements have been reached on human rights and international
humanitarian law, socio-economic rights and political and constitutional
reforms. It is also unreasonable and totally unacceptable because after
disarmament and demobilization of the New People’s Army (NPA) there will
be no further need to discuss substantive issues that will address the
roots of the armed conflict and attain a just and lasting peace. It is
also condescending to the revolutionary forces and their allies, --
probably including most of us in this hall now -- who need no
rehabilitation, unlike the human rights violators in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP) and the
notoriously corrupt officials of the Macapagal-Arroyo government suffering
from moral cancer who need not merely rehabilitation but probably surgical
treatment of the brain or even all-sided revolutionary justice. On this
question, the author emphasized that “the NDF does not agree to the
surrender of arms as the biased or predetermined objective of the peace
process. The substantive issues, addressing the roots of the armed
conflict, must first be tackled. In the meantime, with regard to the
question of ending the armed conflict, it may simply be put in the agenda
by referring to armed forces and redisposition thereof.”
The above position, postulated in June 1991 in the Two Articles has been
adopted by both parties on September 1, 1992 or more than one year later,
and is now explicitly contained in the Hague Joint Declaration.
Prof. Sison incisively pointed out the contrast in the objective of the
GRP with that of the NDFP. He wrote:
“In contrast with the strategic view of the NDF that the national
democratic revolution is the way to a just and lasting peace, the GRP has
for its strategic view the preservation of the oppressive and exploitative
system and the defeat and pacification of the revolutionary forces.
Thus, the GRP demand first of all the submission of the NDF to the GRP
Constitution and as soon as possible the liquidation of the New People’s
Army and the surrender of its arms.”
On the question of sincerity in the peace negotiations which is often
raised by the GRP and its allies, the author countered thus:
“The sincerity of the NDF in this regard is to be measured by its
steadfastness in defending and upholding the people’s interest, its
firmness of principles even while making policy adjustments to achieve
certain specific anti-imperialist (e.g., the immediate removal of U.S.
military bases) and democratic (e.g. genuine and thoroughgoing land
reform) demands, and its vigilance in frustrating every scheme to
undermine the gains and achievements of the revolutionary movement and the
people.”
On reducing the level of violence, he said:
“ x x x The burden of responsibility for reducing the armed conflict lies
on the part of the GRP and its military instrument, the AFP. As soon as
they desist from carrying out onslaughts against the people and the
guerilla fronts, there would be a dramatic reduction of the armed
conflict. Consequently, the GRP would even be able to save on military
expenditures and reallocate its resources towards nonmilitary activities.”
On the co-belligerency status of the NDFP under international law, the
author pointed out that:
“ As a belligerent force, the NDF has a demonstrated national political
leadership over a considerable part of the population and territory of the
Philippines; has effective command over a sizeable people’s army; and
comprehensively performs functions of government through local organs of
political power which may be summarily called the people’s revolutionary
government.”
Concluding his two long articles on the question of peace, the chief
political consultant of the NDFP said:
“Notwithstanding the current obstacles to peace negotiations, the NDF is
more than ever pursuing the struggle for a just and lasting peace because
it is pursuing the national democratic revolution and waging all possible
forms of struggle.”
Let me add that despite the intransigence and impossible precondition
imposed by the Macapagal-Arroyo government, the NDFP, based on its own
written and public pronouncements, remains open to the resumption of the
peace talks without any precondition from its side.
|
 |
 |
Rebyu
Prof. Judy M. Taguiwalo, Ph.D
University of the Philippines Diliman
Ang “For Democracy and Socialism Against Imperialist Globalization”, (Para
sa Demokrasya at Sosyalismo Laban sa Imperyalistang Globalisasyon) ay
kolekyon ng 18 artikulong isinulat ni Prop. Jose Maria Sison mula Agosto
23, 1995 hanggang Mayo 2000.
Kabilang sa koleksyong ito ang mga mensahe ng may akda sa pagdiriwang ng
mga sentenaryo ng Rebolusyong 1896 at ng Digmang Pilipino-Amerikano at ang
kanyang artikulo kaugnay ng paggunita sa ika 150 taon ng Communist
Manifesto. Narito rin ang tatlong artikulong inihanda niya para sa
Brussels Conference noong 1997, 1998 at 1999. Sapagkat napakahalaga ng
patuloy na paglilinaw sa katangian ng pambansa demokratikong kilusan sa
Pilipinas, may mga artikulong natatalakay sa rebolusyong Pilipino at ang
usapin ng nasyonalidad; ang relasyon at kombinasyon ng legal at di legal
na mga anyo ng pakikibaka; at ng diplomasya at matagalang digmang bayan.
May isang buong artikulo kaugnay ng Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
ng Tsina na isinulat batay sa kahilingan ng Monthly Review. Kabilang din
sa aklat ang kanyang talumpati sa protest meeting kaugnay ng kanyang
asylum case sa Netherlands.
Pero ang bulto ng mga artikulo aklat ay naglilinaw sa katangian ng
globalisasyon bilang imperyalistang globalisasyon at ang pagdidiin na
nanatili ang buong daigdig sa panahon ng imperyalismo at proletaryong
rebolusyon. Di ito nakapagtataka dahil bago ang krisis pampinansya noong
1997, paulit ulit ang hambog na pagdeklara ng imperyalismo na tapos na ang
kasaysayan, wala nang ibang landas na tatahakin ang mundo kundi ang
kapitalistang landas at ang liberal na demokrasya ng burgesya. Panahon din
yaon ng pagyakap ng mga burges na ekonomista sa loob at labas ng mga
pamantasan at ng mga NGO’s at civil society groups, na suportado ng mga
imperyalistang ahensya, sa di-umano’y pangako ng globalisasyon na inilako
ng mga institusyon tulad ng WTO, World Bank at IMF.
Sa aklat na ito, muling ipinamamalas ni Prop. Jose Ma. Sison ang kanyang
mahigpit na sapul sa kasaysayan ng kapitalismo at ng kilusang paggawa sa
buong daigdig, sa mga batayang katangian ng imperyalismo anu’t anupaman
ang maskarang ginagamit nito at sa pangangailangan ng sosyalismo para
makamit ang kasaganaan at kapayapaan para sa mamamayan ng buong mundo.
Matalas at malalim na inilahad ni Dr. Ed Villegas sa introduksyon sa
librong ito ang mahahalagang kontribusyon ni Prop. Sison sa patuloy nating
pag-unawa sa katangian ng imperyalismo, ng rebisyonismo at ang sosyalismo
bilang tanging alternatibo sa pagsasamantala’t pang-aapi ng imperyalismo
at kapitalismo sa mundo.
Nais kong bigyang diin sa rebyung ito ang ilang mahahalagang paglilinaw na
ginawa ni Prop. Sison :
1. Ang globalisasyon at imperyalismo ay iisa.
2. Bangkarote ang imperyalistang globalisasyon.
3. Ang imperyalismo ay nangangahulugan ng digma.
4. Ang patuloy na katuturan ng sosyalismo
Ang globalisasyon at imperyalismo ay iisa
Sa gitna ng pagtatangka ng mga imperyalistang bansa at ng kanilang mga
multilateral na mga institusyon na ipakete ang globalisasyon bilang isang
“tsunami” na hindi kayang hadlangan ng mamamayan, malinaw kay Prop. Sison
na ang globalisasyon ay imperyalistang globalisasyon.
Aniya:
…(L)et me clarify that “globalization” is a fancy expression to obscure
the precise and scientific term imperialism. It is a supraclass,
petty-bourgeois expression originally used by bourgeois journalists and
academics and subsequently adopted by corporate executives and high
bureaucrats. It seeks to smuggle into the public consciousness the
acceptance of the antiworker and antipeople notion that the increasing
“laissez faire” rapacity of monopoly capitalism is necessary and
appropriate to high technology and increased social productivity.
(“Globalization and Class Struggle”,p. 168)
Ayon pa sa kanya, ang mga katagang “free market economies”, “free
competition“ and “free trade” para isalarawan ang imperyalistang
globalisasyon ay mga kamoplaheng ginagamit ng imperyalismo para maikubli
ang realidad ng pagsasamantala ng monopolyo kapitalismo habang itinutulak
nitong buksan ng mga bansang mahihirap ang kanilang pamilihan sa labis na
kapital at labis na produkto ng mga imperyalistang bansa.
Isa pang kasinungalingang maagang inilantad ni Prop. Sison ay ang umano’y
wala nang katuturan ang ”nation states” sa panahon ng globalisasyon.
The “neoliberals’” most outlandish claim is that multinational firms and
banks have lost their national character and basing and have become so
powerful internationally as to render impotent all kinds of states and
reduce to irrelevance all questions of national sovereignty. But in fact,
multinational enterprises have most of their capital, stock owners,
personnel, research and development in their home countries and depend on
their own imperialist states and multilateral agencies of states for
protection, insurance and subsidies in their overseas operations and
expansion.(“The Fatal Course of Imperialism and the Inevitability of
Socialism”, p. 154)
Habang ibinabandila ng mga monopolyong kapitalista ang “malayang
pamilihan” at nilalabanan ang pakikialam ng estado sa pamamagitan ng
pagtutulak ng pribatisasyon, liberalisasyon at deregulasyon, kinikilala
nito ang mahalagang papel ng estado bilang instrumento ng dominasyon sa
uring manggagawa sa kanilang mga bansa at sa mga mamamayan ng mga bayang
malakolonya
Sa imperyalistang globalisasyon, mahalaga ang estado para sa pagtitiyak at
pagtatanggol sa interes ng malalaking negosyo habang todo ang pagbubuwis
sa mamamayan at todo ang pagbabawas ng pondo para sa serbisyong
panlipunan. Kaya angkop na angkop ang maiksing paglarawan ni Prop. Sison
sa linya ng mga imperyalistang estado na “corporate welfare, yes! Social
welfare, no!” (“The Fatal Course of Imperialism and the Inevitability of
Socialism”, p. 153)
Bangkarote ang imperyalistang globalisasyon
Sa iba’t ibang artikulo sa librong ito, ipinakita ni Prop. Sison ang
pagkabangkarote ng imperyalismo na mamamalas sa pangdaigdigang depresyon,
ang malawak na kahirapan, ang pampulitikang ligalig at mga gera. (“The
Bankruptcy of Imperialist Globalization and the Urgency of the Socialist
Cause”, p. 137)
Pagpapabilis sa konsentrasyon ng kapital at maksimisasyon ng tubo sa
pamamagitan ng pribatisasyon, liberalisasyon at deregulasyon ang
pangunahing tunguhin ng monopolyo kapitalismo. Direkta ang epekto ng mga
patakarang ito sa uring manggagawa at sa malawak na mamamayan. Nakapako
ang mababang sahod ng mga manggagawa, sangkatutak na buwis ang pinapataw
sa mga serbisyo at mga produkto at binabawasan ang alokasyon para sa mga
panlipunang benepisyo at serbisyo. Samantala, kung anu-anong insentibo
tulad ng pag-alis ng mga buwis at pagbail-out sa mga naluluging kompanya
ang ibinibigay ng estado sa mga monopolyo kapitalista.
Ang kawalan ng trabaho ng malaking bilang ng mga manggagawa at ang
napakababang sahod at pinaliit na mga benepisyong panlipunan para sa mga
may trabaho ay nagpapapakitid sa pamilihan ng mga monopolyo kapitalista at
nagbubunga ng labis na produksyon na tutungo sa pagsasara ng ibang mga
impresa, pagtatanggal sa mga manggagawa at pagkalugi ng iba’t ibang
korporasyon. Nililikha mismo ng imperyalismo ang sarili nitong krisis.
Naililihim ng panandalian ang pagkabangkarote ng imperyalistang
globalisasyon bunga ng ilusyon ng pag-unlad dahil sa pag-abuso sa
pananalapi.
The most imaginative forms of making money on money have been devised.
Real assets are overvalued through the securities market, through
unbridled bank borrowings by corporations and hedge funds (speculative
investment firms), through speculative mergers and through the practice of
international usury at the expense of the dominated countries.
Every day, at electronic speed, trillions of dollars move around the world
in financial transactions among multinational firms and banks. Central
banks keep a blind eye to the private transactions until the financial
collapse occurs and the IMF moves in to require the client states to
assume responsibility for the private debts, raise interest rates and
devalue the currency or until within the imperialist countries themselves
public funds are used to bail out the private firms and banks. (“The
Bankruptcy of Imperialist Globalization and the Urgency of the Socialist
Cause” pp. 137-138)
Ang imperyalismo ay nangangahulugan ng gera.
Ang imperyalismo ay nangangahulugan ng gera. Muli itong idiniin ni Prop.
Sison sa kanyang pagbaybay sa mga gerang imperyalista.
Monopoly firms form international combines to arrange production and the
market and to maximize profits at the expense of the proletariat and the
people. But the competition among the monopoly firms also never ceases. It
brings about the crisis of overproduction from one cycle of boom and bust
to another. So long as imperialism persists, so will this crisis proceed
from one level of severity to another. Under conditions of economic
crisis, interimperialist competition sharpens and can sharpen to the point
of causing the breakup of international combines and the realignment of
monopolies and lead to wars, such as World War I and II. (“The People’s
Struggle Against War”, p. 213)
Ang dalawang pandaigdigang gera sa pagitan ng mga imperyalista, Ang Unang
Digmang Pandaigdig (1914-1918) at ang Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig
(1939-1946, ay mga tugon sa krisis ng labis na produksyon ng mga
imperyalistang bansa at may layuning magkaroon ng panibagong hatian ng
daigdig. Sa mga ito ilampung milyong mamamayan ang namatay. Habang lumakas
ang US sa pagtatapos ng mga gerang ito, ang mga digmang pandaigdig ay
nagluwal ng unang sosyalistang bansa noong 1917 at ng sosyalistang Tsina
noong 1949.
Ang “Cold War” noong ikalawang hati ng ika 20 siglo, ay kinakitaan ng
serye ng mga gera ng agresyon ng imperyalismong US sa Korea, Vietnam at
iba pang bahagi ng Asya. Naglunsad ito ng mga anti komunistang kampanya sa
Asia, Africa at Latina Amarica. Ang Cold War ay maituturing na Ikatlong
Digmang Pandaigdig na ang mga biktima ay umabot din sa ilanpung milyong
namatay.
Ani Prop. Sison:
The wars unleashed by monopoly capitalism have made the 20th the bloodiest
century in the entire history of mankind. And under conditions of
imperialist domination, the people of the world in their billions have
suffered excruciating oppression and exploitation. Even in the socialist
and anti-imperialist countries, the people have suffered US economic
blockade and the threats and acts of intervention. And yet the “civil
society” propaganda of the imperialists and their special agents focus on
depicting the armed revolutions of the proletariat and the people, as the
source of war and “uncivility”. (“The People’s Struggle Against War”,
p.215)
Ipinaalaala sa atin ni Prop. Sison na ang ating Rebolusyon noong 1896 ay
makapagtamo na sana ng lubos na tagumpay.
“ But U.S. imperialism intervened, unleashed a brutal war of aggression
against the Filipino people and turned the Philippines into its own
colony. It did not only deploy a far superior military force to defeat the
revolutionary army and massacre 10 percent of the people but also launched
the deceptive propaganda of benevolent assimilation and pro-imperialist
liberalism which coopted the bourgeois liberal leadership of the
revolutionary movement.” (“On Celebrating the Centennial of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896”, pp.2-3)
Ang katangiang ito ng imperyalismo, ang gera bilang pangunahing
instrumento ng pananakop at ang panloloko para makonsolida ang
kapangyarihan nito ay nagpapatuloy hanggang sa kasalukuyan.
Sosyalismo
Ayon kay Prop. Sison patuloy ang katuturan ng pagsalarawang ginawa ni
Lenin sa kalagayan ng daigdig : “ nasa panahon tayo ng imperyalismo at ng
rebolusyong proletaryo” . Ang rebisyonistang pagtalikod sa sosyalismo at
ang pagtindi ng imperyalistang pagsasamantala at panunupil ang nagtutulak
sa proletaryado at sa mamamayan ng mundo para ipaglaban ang sosyaslismo at
mapaunlad ang pamamaraan para matatag na makapanatili sa landas ng
sosyalismo .(“The Bankruptcy of Imperialist Globalization and the Urgency
of the Socialist Cause, p. 148)
Dagdag ni Prop. Sison:
Ang rebisyonistang pagtataksil sa sosyalismo at ang tagumpay ng monopolyo
kapitalismo sa paglatag ng neokolonyalismo ay nagpaatras sa mamamayan ng
daigdig sa isang sitwasyong maihahambing sa panahon bago ng Unang Digmang
Pandaigdig kung kailan wala pang makapangyarihang estadong sosyalista na
tumitindig laban sa imperialismo. (“The People’s Struggle Against War”, p.
209)
Ang ganitong kalagayan ay kabahagi ng pakikibaka para sa sosyalismo pero
ang bangkaroteng katangian ng impery alismo ang nagluluwal ng mainam na
mga kondisyon para makapanibagong lakas at umabante ang mga suhetibong
pwersa ng rebolusyon.
The epochal struggle between the forces of imperialism and those of
socialism is far from finished. Capitalism is not the end of history. As a
new thing in the history of mankind, socialism has to go through twists
and turns and ups and downs. The revolutionary parties of the proletariat
have to learn their lessons well from both positive and negative
experiences in order to resurge and prevail over imperialism. (“The
Bankruptcy of Imperialist Globalization and the Urgency of the Socialist
Cause”, pp. 148-149)
Napakahalagang matanganan ng mga rebolusyonaryong partido at proletaryado
ang mga mahahalagang aral sa mahabang pakikibak para sa sosyalismo dahil
hindi simpleng guguho at maglaho ang imperiyalismo at lilitaw ang
sosyalismo:
But imperialism will not collapse on its own accord, even if
interimperialist wars occur. The crisis of overproduction and
interimperialist wars can only provide the favorable objective conditions
for the subjective forces of the revolution to take advantage of in order
to grow in strength through struggle and overthrow the imperialists and
local reactionaries. Only the armed revolution of the proletariat and the
people can destroy the power of imperialism and reaction. (“The People’
Struggle Against War, p.213)
Dahil, mahigpit na tangan ang proletaryong paninindigan, pananaw at
paraan, optimistiko ang pagsusuma ni Prop. Sison sa kahinatnan ng
sosyalismo sa harap ng paliko-likong landas na tinahak nito sa nakaraang
siglo. Napakabuluhan ang isinulat niya noong 1997 sa kasalukuyang
sitwasyong kinakaharap natin:
Conditions in the world capitalist system are now comparable to those
during the Great Depression and even worse in several respects. The stage
is set for far worse capitalist crisis and interimperialist war as well as
for proletarian revolution and national liberation movements in the 21st
century. I am confident that in the revolutionary struggles of the
proletariat and the people in the forthcoming century, the cause of
national liberation, democracy and socialism will win victories greater
than those in the 20th century. (“Accelerated Destruction of Productive
Forces, p. 120)
|
