MERGED: CPP-NPA-NDF Discussions (Issues, Updates, etc.)

[gareb]

---

Visual C#: how can we really say that we are the ones who have awaken?

free_thinker: nicely said arguments. now thats what i call a presentation. more of those please.

1. the middle class in the philippines is unlike other middle classes around the world, because their sole goal is to move out of the Philippines.

true. but the problem is, do we accept this? yes it is reality. but does reality coincide with what is suppose to be right? it is as if the revolution that is being waged today is not led by the middle class.

2. the ones who do stay aren't prone to readily swallow the communist strategy, because they aren't as willing to kill or die as other more desperate souls are.

yes and no. they aren't prone to swallow the communist propaganda because most of those who are staying are either benefiting from the system, are not necessarily hit head on by the blunt corruptness of the system(unlike the peasants and the workers) or are just too indifferent to care. we ask ourselves which side do we belong.

3. so utility-wise, the only useful bodies to mobilize are the poor.

true. because they are the ones who are affected the most. blame them or not for their own hunger, they will find a way to ease that pain. any move they see they will readily adopt.

a. the poor have nothing to lose. ( well, they are losing the meager things that they own each day anyway. it is as if we are presuming that these people do not have families. it is as if we are presuming that these people are inacpable to think for themselves and for their own safety. )

b. b. the poor are less educated, thus can be manipulated. ( i beg to differ. yes, education is an edge. yes, education is a powerful tool. yes, you can do so many things that you could not have even imagined. but this is to assume that these people cannot think for themselves. they see the communist propaganda. they see what is happening to them. they associate the former with the latter. they fight. )

c. the poor historically are the easiest to mobilize, as seen through
history under various millenarian movements (i.e. the pulahanes,
etc.-- read Ileto's, Pasyon) ( true. but we are again discounting one major factor. 'who are the people that are most affected when certain crisis erupts?' its not the elite. it is not the middle class. it is the meager workers and peasants.

d. the poor can be willed to kill or die for any cause which promises salvation from their present status. ( yes. but they also have brains aside from stomachs. they are not about to sacrifice life and limb for something that may offer them an unsure bright future when they can just sit there and do nothing and be silent )

so, there's a clear reason why the communists (and other millenarian groups) target the poor to wage "armed struggle" against the current hegemony. the irony is, while the communist inner party members in europe and the u.s. send in the poor to do their fighting, the upper class also sends in its poor, uniformed in the military. throughout history, the poor have always been used as sacrifice for others' agenda.

i hope we do not come to the point that we just accept common arguments of why Joma et. al. are outside the country. or just accept that the army is a bunch of foot soldiers who are there to do the bidding of the higher command. or assuming that the 'poor people' are not willingly participating in this and that they do not have any capability of thinking the way rich and (presumably) educated people do.

now comes the questions. 'who is right and who is wrong?' 'who is fighting for who?'

[free_thinker]

there's only two ways to affect revolution in any given situation: violent and non-violent. violent revolutions are as common as the dead bodies they produce (i.e.-- somalia, afghanistan, cambodia, rwanda, etc.--and now liberia). non-violent revolutions are less dramatic, yet equally as effective and longer lasting--with less dead bodies produced (i.e.--gandhi, martin luther king jr., etc.).

now comes the questions. 'who is right and who is wrong?' 'who is fighting for who?'

personally, i believe the ones who are right are those who choose non-violence to affect change.

the descriptions i posted above are not how i feel about people, but my attempts of outlining how people with agendas think.

i hope you also saw the irony and counter-productivity of sending people to die or kill for a cause that's suppose to be tasked to help our people.

besides the communists, there are other groups in our country who are also trying to affect change. but, unlike the communists, their strategy is without martyrs, heroes, and propaganda.

their revolution is less dramatic, and without guns. i think they're right.

[gareb]

besides the communists, there are other groups in our country who are also trying to affect change. but, unlike the communists, their strategy is without martyrs, heroes, and propaganda.

their revolution is less dramatic, and without guns. i think they're right.

oh, they have their own share of martyrs. theirs were splashed all over the news. one of the more recent was beng hernandez.

there too, are even unknown martyrs. people we do not know of who have died for the cause of peaceful revolution. so many. so much. yet all unknown. oh they had propaganda. change. thats what they wanted. and they were killed for it. they were not communists. they havent even heard of the communist rhetoric. yet still they were murdered.

make no mistake. i am not againts a peaceful revolution. i personally want change. when one begins to comprehend the extent of corruption and the filth that we are so blindly cavorting about, one cannot blame another for wanting change and doing what one can for change to manifest itself.

but is it effective? has it shown substantial gains? has it not made us more lenient and more vulnerable and therefore easier to be exploited by the raving and ranting politicians and the big companies not to mention landlords? has it pacified us too much that we have became callous to the stings, letting ourselves be conditioned ( or us conditioning ourselves ) that this is just it, and we cannot do anything about it, and forgetting how to dig up the roots of our problems? has the 'peaceful mode' taught us to just look at the veneer of what our problems and miseries really are and forgetting that there is something much more tragic and much more horrible that is just beneath the surface? has it not taught us to become masochists and accept what it is that is punched down our throats? have we fooled ourselves too much that we have ignored what is real?

i still am in the process of understanding why there is such thing as an armed struggle as of the moment. i cannot speak in behalf of those people. i wont. i am not one of them. i am trying to understand why it came to this point... and how grave the situation is that blood has to be shed. i do not subscribe to them. i am trying to unravel the misconceptions. i am trying to understand them without the yakking voices of the government's propaganda in my ears... i have heard of their yakking and babbling so much it does not mean anything at all.

oh yes, peaceful revolution is less dramatic ( edsa 1 and 2 phenomena excluded ). but has it really amounted to something? the gains were temporary. look at what we have gained ( and later lost ) at both edsa's. some are silent, yes. concentrated in few communities. but have they seen the cause of it all? have they seen that all their needless suffering was not suppose to be if only the system was different?

i hope you also saw the irony and counter-productivity of sending people to die or kill for a cause that's suppose to be tasked to help our people.

i hope we also realize that these people are not fighting a war they do not understand. they are there fighting not because they are forced to, but because they want to. they do not have anything else except their families and a few possesions that would almost amount to nothing. they do not have any education. they cannot make eloquent speeches, they cannot run for elections. they want change and they can only see a way to express that in holding up arms.

it sometimes is a fresher perspective if we look things in the eyes of a peasant, in the eyes of a worker, in the eyes of those huddled silent masses that are bearing the blunt of the misery we are so unaware of.

[dirk]

revolution is inevitable in the philippines. the people are primed for it. the rich won't change. the problems of empirialism, colonial mentality, hyper-consumerism, and pollution have become too apparent to ignore. it will happen.

the only choice before us is whether we accomplish this through violent means, or through non-violent means (p.s.--edsa 1 and 2 weren't revolutions, they were merely peaceful riots).

so tell me, gareb, if you had a choice--not as a peasant, or worker, or student--but as an individual with his own moral standards, which would you choose: violence or non-violence?

[gareb]

so tell me, gareb, if you had a choice--not as a peasant, or worker, or student--but as an individual with his own moral standards, which would you choose: violence or non-violence?

it would be quite misleading to just pigeon-hole the revolution is either word. in a superficial manner, the presentation of the question would unfortunately mislead the people who had just encountered this because the roots and causes of the the problem is ignored.

a revolution is essentially a call for replacing the old order; a move designed to effect changes in many aspects of our conciousness.

i am for peaceful means as much as possible. the blood that flows down our hands will forever haunt us in the future. yes, violence is essential sometimes but it is not everything.

but what is a peaceful revolution? how effective is it? what gains do we have so far if this peaceful revolution really does exists? how does it work? can it guarantee victory? will it guarantee the longed-for genuine freedom that we have been deprived of for so long?

edsa 1 and 2 were revolutions. both toppled a dictator and a corrupt leader respectively. those were peaceful mobs, yes. ( riots are essentially violent so there is not such thing as a peaceful riot ) in both uprisings the ire of the people were heard, and for those few days, the voice of the people was at its loudest.

to discredit armed revolution is to discredit the countless heroes and martyrs that have died in battle for over 400 years. and to think that we venerate these people now... the irony is there. what once was is still what is now because we never learn. our revolutions from the past to the present have never succeeded because there are so many of us who do not believe in it. now we suffer for that mistake. now we grumble about corruption, poverty and hunger.

a revolution is brewing. hopefully it will manifest itself in a peaceful manner. hopefully we can change things over peacefully and attain what we have longed for in this way. hopefully, with no lives lost, we can uproot this old system riddled with corruption, crime, poverty and hunger and replace it with something new and just. hopefully, we can only wish.

[dirk]

but what is a peaceful revolution? how effective is it? what gains do we have so far if this peaceful revolution really does exists? how does it work? can it guarantee victory? will it guarantee the longed-for genuine freedom that we have been deprived of for so long?

the best examples of peaceful revolutions are those began by gandhi, the filipino farm workers in california, and martin luther king jr. they were very effective. sadly, here in philippines non-violence is considered a weakness, thus does not get much publicity.

edsa 1 and 2 were revolutions. both toppled a dictator and a corrupt leader respectively. those were peaceful mobs, yes. in both uprisings the ire of the people were heard, and for those few days, the voice of the people was at its loudest.

edsa 1 and 2 weren't revolutions becuz all they did was change the figure heads, but left the same corrupt and immoral system intact. no revolution was accomplished.

a revolution is brewing. hopefully it will manifest itself in a peaceful manner. hopefully we can change things over peacefully and attain what we have longed for in this way. hopefully, with no lives lost, we can uproot this old system riddled with corruption, crime, poverty and hunger and replace it with something new and just. hopefully, we can only wish.

this is hopeful, becuz atleast i know you're not one of the blood-thirsty communists running around with M16s or AK47s, internalizing the very system they are supposed to be in opposition of. those who solve problems with guns and bullets never actually solve anything, they're just adding to the bigger systemic problem.

we are filipinos. we are the only 3rd world country (as the west loves to categorize us) with a surplus of academics, lawyers, doctors, teachers, artists, etc. we don't have to resort to khmer rouge, somali, afghani, chinese, rawandi tactics, we are more sophisticated than this!

[gareb]

the best examples of peaceful revolutions are those began by gandhi, the filipino farm workers in california, and martin luther king jr. they were very effective. sadly, here in philippines non-violence is considered a weakness, thus does not get much publicity.

by the above examples given the concept of a peaceful revolution described by free_thinker as 'less dramatic'. obviously it attracted much attention from the world.

no it is not weak. it is just ineffective. there is no comparison between martin luther king's america, together with ghandi's india versus the philippines. there were no political subtleties involved, no political manipulation, no 'subdermal' agenda. what was involved there was racism and independence, one is a concrete ideology that must be destroyed, another is an ideology that must be uphold. there were the whites, there were the british. the philippine setting offers a different set of characters. politicians that we hate yet still support, love hate relationship with the americans, the elite who happens to weld power... it's more complex than the issue faced by ghandi and king. i see no point of comparison.

edsa 1 and 2 weren't revolutions becuz all they did was change the figure heads, but left the same corrupt and immoral system intact. no revolution was accomplished

i beg to differ. those were peaceful revolutions; just failed ones at that. the elite in power (the same old block anyway) are propagating the idea that it was a victory, which it really was not. as you said, it is still 'the same corrupt and immoral system ' but with different people incharge.

we must not judge what a thing is because of its outcome. it was a revolution; a peaceful one. ask any political analyst and he/she will tell you that both movements were within the definition of what a revolution is. a revolution is defined NOT as a 'successful movement' but the 'initiative' or the movement itself.

the scenario offers us a vista of the weakness of a peaceful revolution. it in many ways (especially the philippine scenario) can be influenced by the ruling class and then be subverted to any way they want it to be subverted. a plain and quite obvious example is what is happening today. i guess u agree with me that only the figurehead changed... the corrupt and filthy system is still very much alive. we have only trimmed the leaves... we never really pulled out the root.

we are filipinos. we are the only 3rd world country (as the west loves to categorize us) with a surplus of academics, lawyers, doctors, teachers, artists, etc. we don't have to resort to khmer rouge, somali, afghani, chinese, rawandi tactics, we are more sophisticated than this!

i again beg to differ. we DO NOT have a surplus of academics and intellectuals. the thing u just said is a fallacy often perpetuated to make us think that our destination is nowehere else but abroad.. to work not for the development of our country but for another. we need every nurse, every doctor, every lawyer that we have here. the philippines is being drained intellectually by this desire to go out of the country. that obviously is not beneficial for this country.

the fact that it may appear that we have a 'surplus' workforce is provided for by the high unemployment. but this DOES NOT translate that we do not need more intellectuals and workers. we need teachers in the barrios, doctors in the villages, nurses in the municipalities... it is just that they are given NO JOBS that can accomodate our need for them and their need for a job.

i fear i have to remind you that not all bloody confrontations are the same. they happen to different people of different cultures at different times and different situations. it is not right for us to just lump them all together and label them as such. it would lead to needless and harmful misconceptions rwandan genocide is deplorable. the somalian revolt was due to the famine and the countless dead children all because they dont have anything to eatand the somali government not duing its duties to the people. afghan situation was due to the poverty afte the U.S. left it after it exploited it during the withrawal of Russian troops. the fascist khmer rogue twisted the noble ideals of a nation and used it to amass power and wealth sacrificing thousands of men, women and children.

[YbriP]

what i see it is,

life-change can happen but not that fast...

phil govt.-change your side then you'll know it has changed....it wont!!!

[Visual C#]

Violence is only necessary in the most extreme cases... but it is never a first choice for change....

[free_thinker]

between a non-violent and a violent revolution, as the only two strategies of philippine revolution, you basically have decided that violence is the only way, gareb.

as always, you've provided very enlightening points. it is also very obvious that you've given the subject very much thought.

no it (non-violence) is not weak. it is just ineffective. there is no comparison between martin luther king's america, together with ghandi's india versus the philippines.

now, my question is...

if armed struggle is the only solution as you and the communists have outlined, since non-violence is "just ineffective", why are you not among the proud future "martyrs" and "heroes" in the mountains, carrying M16s and AK47s, waging war against the young soldiers of the Philippine military?

what's keeping you from joining the ranks of the NPA?