In second place was Andy Stubbs with 52:34, while Daniel Gibbs (56:55), Ivan Whigham (57:42) and Alan Life (57:44) made up the rest of the the top five places.
iwc replica watches

your blog is nice in a nice article and interesting read, by reading all the articles in your blogs add to my knowledge,

sprei , grosir sprei , jual sprei , sprei katun jepang , sprei my love , sprei kintakun , sprei belladona , bed cover murah

PRES. NOYNOY AQUINO CANNOT RESOLVE CORRUPTION AND POVERTY

The slogan of Pres. Noynoy Aquino that "kung walang corrupt ay walang mahirap" is just a mere rhetoric. In fact, never we can see in his 2011 national budget how much the country can save if corruption will be stopped and how much we can get money from corrupt politicians and generals and there is no clear social agenda to address the root causes of poverty.

Corruption is build-into a capitalist system

It becomes a political comedy to hear from some leaders of the progressive left that Pres. Noynoy Aquino can eradicate corruption and poverty in the Philippines without overthrowing the capitalist system. This shows the very low level of theoretical understanding of Marxism-Leninism, if not being eaten by opportunism and reformism.

When everything is a commodity, why wouldn’t power be up for sale?

It is very basic in the study of Marxism that when everything is a commodity not only in the economic spheres, so with the political life of the country, and therefore, political power is also for sale. This can be reflected on the huge money spent before, during and after election to bribe the people and in return, the politicians regained their spending and profited more through their pork barrel, maintenance and other operating expenses (MOE) and other means as revealed by Sen. Miriam Defensor.

Each senator gets P150 million in pork every year; there are 24 senators. Each congressman gets P70 million a year; there are 250 of them. Chairmen and members of the Senate and House committees on Finance and Appropriations get much, much more. So go do the arithmetic and you will have an idea of how many billions of pesos of the people’s taxes are lost to the pork barrel system alone, money that should have been spent instead for services to the people and alleviate poverty, money that should have been funneled back in services to the people who slaved for and paid them.

It is so easy to end the pork barrel system. It is the Executive Department that prepares the annual budget and sends it to Congress. The legislature cannot appropriate funds for projects not in the President’s original budget proposal. So all the President has to do is not include in his budget proposal funds for pork. But year in and year out, Malacañang includes lump sums for such innocent-sounding appropriations as Priority Development Assistance Fund and Countrywide Development Fund. That is only the principal pork barrel fund. There are still congressional insertions in the budgets of most departments. The insertions provide that hundreds of millions of pesos of the budget are set aside for the projects of certain legislators. The pork barrel is the President’s way of bribing legislators to do what he wants.

One of the principal causes of corruption is the pork barrel, that part of the people’s money surreptitiously set aside for their projects, half of which they steal. During GMA administration she got P800 million pork barrel every year and now, Pres. Noynoy Aquino got P1 billion pork barrel every year. The mayors, all councilors from municipal to City to provincial, congressmen, senators and the President have their own pork barrels, one of the major sources of corruption. They capitalized certain amount during campaign period and when seated in power, they regained their capital expenses and profited more (bureaucrat capitalism).

Major political corruption scandals have recently made headlines in tri-media around the country. The increased attention to the issue raises important questions: Are politics getting more corrupt? Or have such scandals existed throughout all era of politics in the Philippines? Is it a matter of an individual abused or built-into the system itself?

Political corruption is institutional

Political corruption has existed in every era of Philippine political life. Even when a few “bad apples” are punished for their crimes, legions of lobbyists for some of the biggest and most powerful corporations still dominate nearly every aspect of Philippine politics.

Bad apples in a basket of rotten fruit

Clearly, the source of the corruption is not in the individual perpetrators found guilty of a crime, but rather the nature of the system itself (capitalism itself). With such interconnection existing between private corporations and the government, how could one not expect the interests of “national security” and profit-making to become one and the same?

Politics, like all else under capitalism, becomes commodities. Those with political power and influence sell their favors to the highest bidders. Most corruption is sanctified by law: campaign contributions, corporate lobbyism, coveted corporate positions doled out to former and present state officials. The rest is swept under the rug—the not-so-secret stuff everyone in the ruling circles knows but no one talks about, until something becomes too big to hide.

As long as the banks (like World Banks, International Monetary Fund) and big corporations hold the keys to power in all the major institutions of the Philippine government, these same relationships between politics and private business and the associated corruption will continue unabated. Social classes begets social privileges for those who haves in life and deprives those who have not in life and social privileges for those who are in power begets corruption.

Class analysis and class ideology

President Noynoy Aquino and his members of the cabinet (Executive Branch) together with the vast of senators and congressmen (Legislative Branch) along with the Courts (Judicial Branch) falls under the category of the ruling class- they all represents the bourgeoisie and Pres. Noynoy as the chief executive of the ruling class. Pres. Noynoy cannot betray his very own class and the class interest of the bourgeoisie he represents otherwise he sides with the interest of the working class because there are only two great classes that are opposing, in contradiction antagonistically and no remedy for reconciliation as what Marx said that history is a history of class struggle.

“Marx said: Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat.”

Lenin also said that there is no third ideology that mankind has ever created and that there are only two opposing ideologies: the bourgeois ideology versus the working class ideology, the reactionary and the revolutionary. Now, where does Pres. Noynoy stands for? As the chief executive of the current government, the State does not stand in neutrality neither act as mediator. The state is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, special bodies of armed men, prisons, etc and an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

Class struggle: Concerted , Collective and Conscious Class Struggle

According to Marx: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

What is this forcible overthrow means? Some reformists say that it could mean election or any peaceful form of overthrowing the government. Is this true? To answer this question, Let us go back to what Lenin said:

“Outbreaks— demonstrations—street fighting—units of a revolutionary army—such are the stages in the development of the popular uprising. Now at last we have reached the final stage. This does not mean, of course, that the movement in its entirety has advanced to this new and higher stage. No, there is still a good deal of backwardness in the movement; in the Odessa events there are unmistakable signs of old-time rioting. But it does mean that the advance waves of the elemental flood have already reached the very threshold of the absolutist “stronghold”. It does mean that the advanced representatives of the popular masses have themselves arrived, not as a result of theoretical reasoning, but under the impact of the growing movement, at new and higher tasks of the struggle, the final struggle against the enemy of the Russian people. The autocracy has done everything to prepare this struggle. For years it has provoked the people to an armed struggle with its troops, and now it is reaping what it sowed. The units of the revolutionary army are springing up out of the army itself. The task of these units is to proclaim the insurrection, to give the masses military leadership, as essential in civil war as in any other war; to create strong points for the open mass struggle; to spread the uprising to neighboring districts; to establish complete political freedom, if only at first in a small part of the country; to embark on the revolutionary transformation of the decayed absolutist system; and to give full scope to the revolutionary creative activity of the masses, who participate but little in this activity in time of peace, but who come to the forefront in revolutionary epochs. Only by clearly understanding these new tasks, only by posing them boldly and broadly, can the units of the revolutionary army win complete victory and become the strong points of a revolutionary government. And a revolutionary government is as vitally essential at the present stage of the popular uprising as a revolutionary army. The revolutionary army is needed for military struggle and for military leadership of the masses against the remnants of the military forces of the autocracy. The revolutionary army is needed because great historical issues can be re solved only by force, and, in modern struggle, the organization of force means military organization. Besides the remnants of the autocracy’s military forces there are the military forces of the neighboring states for whose support the tottering Russian Government is already begging, of which later ( Lenin: The Revolutionary Army and the Revolutionary Government).

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

No Marxist in his right mind will tell the Filipino people that Pres. Noynoy can improve the standard of living of the working class by helping Pres. Noynoy pushing his agenda or slogan “kung wlang corrupt walang mahirap”. Class struggle is the prime mover of social development and only through a concerted, collective and conscious class struggle of the working class can turn the system upside down. This is very important and basic to Marxism-Leninism. Red letter activists does not fall under class struggle in its essence. It does not make the working class politically conscious. Such activities (red calendar) are superficial. The kind of revolution the working class must fight for until their last breath is socialist revolution and therefore, it will be a working class struggle (the class line). Unlike the CPP-NPA that wages bourgeois democratic revolution (people’s struggle) which is populace line with no class imprint. Class struggle is the key prime mover for system change and social development.

The importance of class struggle: it defines the ideology of the class, its form of organization and its class complete independence, it defines the class enemy and the direction (strategy) of the struggle. One of the major reasons why Edsa people power 1,2,3 did not result into working class positioning in governance was because they integrated with the other faction of the ruling class and forgot their complete class independence and their mission in capturing political power and establishing their class rule. The history of working class movement has proven this error in many countries.

The policy of class complete independence and the working class movement

Marx and Engels mercilessly unmasked the cowardly, counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, and emphasized the need for the workers to maintain a “policy of complete class independence”, not only from the bourgeois liberals, but also from the vacillating petty bourgeois democrats.

Plekhanov said:

“…The practical task of the class-conscious elements in the working-class movement is to point out to the proletariat its mistake, and to explain to it how risky is the game called armed uprising. We must value the support of the non-proletarian opposition parties, and not repel them by tactless actions” (Lenin on Insurrection).

Many times Lenin criticized Plekhanov for his idea that the working class must not antagonize the other section of the ruling class-the opposition faction and that tactical alliance with the opposition was beneficial to the working class. This idea of Plekhanov is denounced many times by Lenin.

Stalinist bureaucracy instead of pursuing a revolutionary policy based on class independence, as Lenin had always advocated, they proposed an alliance of the Communist Parties with the “national progressive bourgeoisie” (and if there was not one easily at hand, they were quite prepared to invent it) to carry through the democratic revolution, and afterwards, later on, in the far distant future, when the country had developed a fully fledged capitalist economy, fight for socialism. This policy on non-complete independence of the working class and alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie and the national progressive bourgeoisie that the Stalinist bureaucracy made according to Lenin was a complete break with Leninism and a return to the old discredited position of Menshevism. The same error committed by the Menscheviks is what is happening now in the Philippine Left movement both the RA camp and the RJ.

The inter-classist movement in the Philippines is initiated by the leftist Maoist movement. This is one of their “three magic weapons” for their bourgeois national-democratic revolution. Its concept of revolution is the Stalinist “bloc of four classes” (i.e., alliance of workers, peasants, and petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie). That’s why it is part of its basic principles the tactical alliance with the faction of the ruling class. But this Maoist strategy is also practice by the anti-Maoist leftists in the Philippines. This only means that frontism of whatever type is inherent to all leftist currents to derail the proletariat to achieve its own class consciousness.

When the proletarian movement integrates itself to the struggle of the non-proletarian classes especially with the faction of the capitalist class, it weakens itself as a class. In 1986, the relatively strong militant workers movement was weaken due to the united front policy and armed guerilla actions of the Maoist CPP. In 2001, the already weak proletarian movement was further weakened by the inter-classist “People Power” to oust Joseph Estrada. Now, once again, all factions of the bourgeoisie and the unions are calling the atomized and demoralized workers to participate in the struggles led by its class enemy.

What happened in Latin America is also what happened in 1986 and 2001 in the Philippines: “The fact that significant parts of the proletariat have been sucked into these revolts is of the greatest importance, because it marks a profound loss of class autonomy. Instead of seeing themselves as proletarians with their own interests, workers in Bolivia and Argentina saw themselves as citizens sharing common interests with the petty-bourgeois and non-exploiting strata.” (ICC, ‘Popular revolts’ in Latin America: Its class autonomy is vital to the proletariat)

If we do not seek social revolution then independent political organization of the working class is not required, which is why those that seek only the reform of capitalism or believe capitalism can be turned into socialism through piecemeal change inevitably enter into deals and coalitions with capitalist parties. To those that believe revolution is not required or at least not on the historical agenda we will limit ourselves to one remark. Reforms of capitalism, no matter how extensive, (and leaving out how they might be won without actually threatening revolution), leave workers as wage-slaves, as producers of profit for capitalists; inevitably leaving them political slaves as well. Anyone with the remotest interest in socialism will not find it hard to appreciate that a class that leaves itself economically exploited, that has its daily life under the supervision and control of the capitalist class, and of the capitalist state, will never have the power to remove inequality and insecurity or their causes. It is for this reason that Marx also said that ‘The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.’

The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.

And conversely, workers who have assimilated Marx’s theory, i.e., realized the inevitability of wage-slavery so long as capitalist rule remains, will not be fooled by any bourgeois reforms. Understanding that where capitalism continued to exist reforms cannot be either enduring or far-reaching, the workers fight for better conditions and use them to intensify the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilize reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle.

The stronger reformist influence is among the workers the weaker they are, the greater their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the easier it is for the bourgeoisie to nullify reforms by various subterfuges. The more independent the working-class movement, the deeper and broader its aims, and the freer it is from reformist narrowness the easier it is for the workers to retain and utilize improvements.

This reformist will derail the political consciousness of the working class and divert the struggle from revolution to reformism. They will deceive the masses with their promises that their so-called tactical allies in bureaucracy can bring change or better life and that what the working class can do is just “support and go with the program” of the reactionary government instead of class struggle. Mass movement for reformist became a game, a source of money making at the expense of the masses in the streets, a red letter calendar activities and at the end, the working class become tired until they will lost their faith in the revolution.

Alternatives

So what is the alternative? I have argued that any alternative should have been informed by the task of advancing the independent organization of the working class with the understanding that ‘the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves’ (Marx Provisional rules of the First International).

Let us not be eaten by reformism and opportunism tendencies. Straight to the point: Reformism or revolution? There is only one road for social development and that is class struggle. The reformist might argued that “the present objective condition does not warrant a direct confrontation between the capitalist-run state and the working class”, again, much more that the revolutionary working class must engage into more intensive and aggressive agitation and propaganda against the state.

How to empower the poor, oppressed and exploited sectors?

Being accredited by the Securities and Exchange and Commission (SEC) or by local and national government agencies is not tantamount to empowering the poor. Allowing them to be represented in any government agencies is not equal to empowering them. In fact, this is how the bourgeois state wants the marginalized sectors to be empowered (artificial).

The marginalized sectors can gain recognition?

The mere fact that there are two great classes opposing and in constant contradiction (capitalist vs proletariat), is already a declaration and recognition of the existence of the oppressor and the oppressed and since the birth of private property, social classes also arises and this class division signals the beginning of class struggle.

Only class struggle waged by the oppressed, poor and exploited class can bring about system change, social development, people empowerment, class consciousness and it is only then that the poor can gain real recognition. Without conscious, collective and concerted class struggle, recognition extended by the bourgeois state becomes mere rhetoric and purposely to deceive the masses. The reactionary government and its cohorts want to take away from the poor "class struggle and seizure of power" in exchange for "organizational recognition" and with a promised of concessions.

PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION: WORKING CLASS REVOLUTION BETRAYED

For the Reaffirmist Group (RA), the socio-economic formation of the Philippines is semi-feudal which brings them to the tactics of the inter-classist movement. This is one of their “three magic weapons” for their bourgeois national-democratic revolution. Its concept of revolution is the Stalinist “bloc of four classes” (i.e., alliance of workers, peasants, and petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie). That’s why it is part of its basic principles the tactical alliance with the faction of the ruling class. But this Maoist strategy is also practice by the anti-Maoist leftists (RJs) in the Philippines, the very reason why they always bring with them the other section of the national bourgeoisie and liberal democrats. This only means that frontism of whatever type is inherent to all leftist currents to derail the proletariat to achieve its own class consciousness

For those belonging to Rejectionist Group (RJ), the socio-economic formation of the Philippines is capitalist and therefore, there are only two camps with irreconcilable class interest and always at war, the capitalist class and the working class. The working class has no political ally as politics and economics are concerned. This is very important that we must understand! The working class has no political ally in the epoch of capitalism and making an alliance with national bourgeoisie would only derail political consciousness of the working class and betrays their immediate aim for conquest of political power.

The task of the advance of every conscious element of the revolutionary working class is to awaken, organize and mobilize the working class towards seizure of political power. But how can they awaken if they are in alliance with the section of national bourgeoisie? How can they propagate the cause of socialism if they become part of the system that oppressed them unless they are outside of the system and maintains their complete independence from the system?

How to awaken the political consciousness of the working class is the first and foremost question?

Lenin said:

“A basic condition for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organization of comprehensive political exposure”

“Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggles, from outside the sphere of relations between workers and employers. The sphere from which alone it is possible to obtain this knowledge is the sphere of relationships of all classes and strata to the state and the government, the sphere of the interrelations between all classes” (Lenin, What Is To be Done?)

The development of the political consciousness of the working class is the very foremost obligation of every conscious revolutionary element of the revolutionary working class. The entire working class cannot be politically conscious on economic struggles, the very reason why Lenin said that class political consciousness must be done outside the economic. This economic struggle (like the hope for better wages, development projects, etc) will only result to unionism and reformism and ultimately, derail the class consciousness of the working class, the thing that we ought not to do neither allow to happen.

Lenin said:

“The economic struggle merely impels the workers to realize the government’s attitude towards the working class. Consequently, however much we may try to lend the economic struggle itself a political character, we shall never be able to develop the political consciousness of the workers (to the level of Socialist political consciousness) by keeping within the framework of the economic struggle, for that framework is too narrow”…“For this reason the conception of the economic struggle as the most widely applicable means of drawing the masses into the political movement…is so extremely harmful and reactionary in its practical significance” (Lenin, What Is To be Done?)

The fact that the working class are always in the streets (rallies, demonstrations) demanding for economic reforms, better wages, etc, does not and will not make them a politically conscious working class.

Lenin said:

“The fact that the working class participates in the political struggle and even in the political revolution does not in itself makes its politics a Social-Democratic politics”

The answer on how to educate the working class to become politically conscious is political exposures.

Political exposures and training in revolutionary activity- in no way except by means of such political exposures can the masses be trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity. Hence, activity of this kind is one of the most important functions of the revolutionary party. For even political freedom does not in any way eliminate exposures; it merely shifts somewhat their sphere of direction. The working class consciousness cannot be genuinely political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected-unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a revolutionary point of view and no other, this is what Lenin said.

Lenin said:

“Political exposures are as much a declaration of war against the government as economic exposures are a declaration of war against the factory owners… political exposures in themselves serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose, as a means for diverting from the enemy his casual or temporary allies, as a means for spreading hostility and distrust among the permanent partners of the autocracy”

Have we trained and are we training the working class to respond to ALL tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected? This is what political propaganda and agitation (political exposures want to achieve). For chairman Mao, to neglect this task means a sin of liberalism, one of the sicknesses of the revolution.

The task to conduct political exposures should not only be limited to few places but it must be organized nation-wide. The all-round political agitation will be conducted by a party which unites into one inseparable whole the assault on the government in the name of the entire people, the revolutionary training of the proletariat, and the safeguarding of its political independence, the guidance of the economic struggle of the working class and the utilization of all its spontaneous conflicts with its exploiters which rouse and bring into our camp increasing numbers of the proletariat and this can be carried sustainably by establishing “study circles”, propaganda leaflets and other educational forms of activity.

The consciousness of the working class cannot be genuinely class-consciousness unless the workers learn, from concrete and above all from topical, political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical, and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata and groups of population. For this reason said Lenin that the conception of the economic struggle as the most widely means of drawing the masses into the political movement is so extremely harmful and reactionary in its practical significance.

In order to become politically conscious, the worker must have a clear picture in his mind of the economic nature and the social and political features the ruling class, the high state official and the “peasant”, the student and vagabond.; he must know their strong and weak points; he must grasp the meaning of all catchwords and sophisms by which each class and each stratum camouflages its selfish strivings and its real “inner working”; he must understand what interests are reflected by certain institutions and certain laws and how they are reflected. But this “clear picture” cannot be obtained from any book. It can be obtained only from living examples and from exposures that follow close upon what is going on about us at a given moment; upon what is being discussed, it whispers perhaps, by each one in his own way; upon what finds expression in such and such events, in such and such statistics, in such and such court sentences, etc. these comprehensive political exposures are an essential and fundamental condition for training the masses in revolutionary activity.

What is its content of our political exposures and how it is to be done? Let us now proceed to the more specific content on how to conduct “political exposures” among the masses.

The content:

1. The teaching of scientific socialism

2. The spreading of proper understanding of the present social and economic system, its basis and its development, the various classes, their interrelations and the role of the working class

The means of carrying the propaganda work:

1. To organize study circles among workers

2. To establish proper and secret connections between them and the Party

3. To publish and distribute working-class literature

4. To organize the receipt of correspondence from all manifestos and to distribute them

5. To train a body of experienced agitators

Lenin elaborated on what Marxists mean by ‘propaganda’ and ‘agitation’:

The socialist activities of Russian Social-Democrats [communists] consist in spreading by propaganda the teachings of scientific socialism, in spreading among the workers a proper understanding of the present social and economic system, its basis and its development, an understanding of the various classes in Russian society, of their interrelations, of the struggle between these classes, of the role of the working class in this struggle, of its attitude towards the declining and the developing classes, towards the past and the future of capitalism, an understanding of the historical task of international Social-Democracy and of the Russian working class. Inseparably connected with propaganda is agitation among the workers, which naturally comes to the forefront in the present political conditions of Russia and at the present level of development of the masses of workers. Agitation among the workers means that the Social-Democrats take part in all the spontaneous manifestations of the working-class struggle, in all the conflicts between the workers and the capitalists over the working day, wages, working conditions, etc., etc. Our task is to merge our activities with the practical, everyday questions of working-class life, to help the workers understand these questions, to draw the workers’ attention to the most important abuses, to help them formulate their demands to the employers more precisely and practically, to develop among the workers consciousness of their solidarity, consciousness of the common interests and common cause of all the Russian workers as a united working class that is part of the international army of the proletariat. To organize study circles among workers, to establish proper and secret connections between them and the central group of Social-Democrats, to publish and distribute working-class literature, to organize the receipt of correspondence from all centers of the working-class movement, to publish agitational leaflets and manifestos and to distribute them, and to train a body of experienced agitators—such, in broad outline, are the manifestations of the socialist activities of Russian Social-Democracy”

This propaganda and agitation work aims to sow distrust and hostility in the government and among allies the government. This propaganda and agitation serve as a powerful instrument for disintegrating the system we oppose,” it is a declaration of war against the state, from here we are opening the mind of the working class that there will be no genuine change that will occur in a capitalist state and the only road is socialist revolution and this can only happen when political power of the bourgeoisie is captured by the working class.

1) The questions and concerns of the masses are the starting point for effective Marxist agitation and propaganda and connect them to the bigger evil (system).

2) Effective agitation and propaganda are completely impossible if you are not close to the masses, if you are unaware of what problems they face and what their concerns are.

3) Effective agitation and propaganda are therefore next to impossible if you divorce yourself from the struggles of the masses.

The Sphere of Agitation and Propaganda – At this point an objection might be raised. Didn’t Lenin also say some things that seem to conflict with the notion that it is the questions of the masses that we must address with our agitation? Didn’t he say for example that agitation is essentially a matter of “political exposure” Doesn’t this mean that we must bring things to the attention of the masses that they are not already aware of, let alone already questioning?

It certainly means we must bring things to the attention of the masses that they are not aware of. But things that people are not aware of can in fact help to answer their existing questions and concerns. The point is to build on what people already know; to connect up what they do not know with what they do know and are concerned with, and to do it in a living, concrete way. That can only mean by presenting them with facts and explanations which truly answer the questions on their minds. When this is done correctly, they will form new questions and seek deeper explanations. This is the way that we all learn and develop. Our goal is to expand people’s knowledge, to deepen their understanding, and to broaden their concerns. But this can only be done by starting from where people are at to begin with.

In bringing some outrage of the bourgeois system to the attention of the masses we must at the same time do our best to connect this outrage up with the life of the masses we are addressing. We must always seek to show how events and circumstances that the masses were not aware of are related to their own class interests and the cause of the problems which confront them.

Well, ok, but didn’t Lenin say that our agitation and propaganda should cover not only the life of the proletariat, but of other classes as well? Shouldn’t we expose all the outrages of the present system, even those which do not directly affect the life of the proletariat? Well, yes we should. But why? Because, for one thing, these events indirectly affect the proletariat. The proletariat’s real concerns are broader than the proletariat; they encompass the broad masses. They encompass the workings of the entire capitalist system.

We are concerned in our educational work not simply with events affecting a few particular individuals among the proletariat, but with the life of the proletariat in general. We use what happens to individual people and sections of the proletariat to deepen people’s class consciousness and knowledge of the system as a whole. Events which affect other classes and strata, especially classes and strata allied to the proletariat (and hence part of the masses), can and should be used in the same way. Our goal is always to broaden the range of concern of the people and their depth of understanding of the true nature of the present system—and why we have no alternative but to replace it.

Many issues cut across class lines, affect people in different classes. The oppression of women, and racial discrimination, for example, affect even some members of the ruling class, and certainly all classes and strata making up the masses. The masses are not as insular and self-centered as they are often portrayed. They do have concern for other people, even people in other classes. And they do see themselves as part of society, with its major problems and all the questions which these problems constantly raise.

On the other hand, different people are more concerned about some particular issues than others; some people have serious questions that others do not have. In general people do tend to be most concerned with issues that most closely affect them personally. This is why agitation and propaganda must be tailored to its specific audience to be most effective. And it is why the tailoring process means more closely relating the agitation and propaganda to the specific interests, concerns, and questions of the people involved.

Lenin also said that agitation and propaganda must concern itself not just with what is happening locally or nationally, but with international events as well. How can events in distant lands be of great concern to people? A naive question indeed! Events in other countries may be far removed physically, but very close socially and politically. Vietnam was far away, but the body bags kept returning to the home towns. In today’s world many distant events illustrate very well the workings of the system that also rules and oppresses at home. There are in fact essential connections between distant events and the important concerns and questions of the people, but many of these connections are somewhat hidden and need to be brought to light.

Of course agitation and propaganda will sometimes range far a field, often discussing events far away and directly affecting people far removed from the local scene. But the goal is always to connect these events and ideas up to the life of the masses being addressed. That is the key to the success of proletarian education.

The Purpose of Agitation and Propaganda – One might think that for a revolutionary Marxist the purpose of agitation and propaganda would be completely obvious. However, I am beginning to believe that nothing at all in revolutionary theory can really be considered completely “obvious”. Somebody, somewhere, always manages to misconstrue it.

I said above that Marxists believe that the purpose of agitation and propaganda is to answer the real and pressing questions on the minds of the masses, about why things are as they are, and about how they may be changed. Of course, our answer to these questions amounts to an exposure of capitalism, and an explanation of why revolution is necessary. Thus we may also say that the primary purpose of agitation and propaganda is to raise the revolutionary consciousness of the masses.

There are, to be sure, secondary goals in our agitation and propaganda, the most important of which is to facilitate and advance the organization of the proletariat and the broad masses. Sometimes Lenin and Mao describe revolutionary consciousness and mass organization together as the primary goal of our educational work. Lenin said, for example, that “Our principal and fundamental task is to facilitate the political development and the political organization of the working class.”

And there are also other secondary (or tertiary) goals in our educational work. The raising of the revolutionary consciousness of the masses will itself lead to other results, such as more unrest among the masses, more strikes and other economic struggles, more intensive mass struggles of all kinds, more combatively on the part of the masses, and so forth. These things are all generally good, and help prepare the masses for revolution through a kind of positive feedback.

But we must be very clear that it is raising revolutionary consciousness, and mass organization, that are our main goals here. The true side effects, such as more (and more intensive) economic strikes, more mass struggle of all kinds, and even more combatively on the part of the masses in general, are well and good, but are not the main point. We should not lose our bearings and turn such secondary things into the focus of our political work. This has been done in the past, and the revolutionary movement has degenerated into a reformist movement, even if it was “militant” and/or “combative”, at first. for more on the dangers of an obsession with “combatively“.

There are many aspects to raising the revolutionary consciousness of the masses. One aspect I’ll mention immediately lies in combating the spontaneous summation of events of interest and concern to the masses. Of course such “spontaneous” summations are generally “guided” by the bourgeoisie, either directly or indirectly, and are in essence therefore usually bourgeois summations. The RCP addressed this issue in speaking of the Moody Park Rebellion in Houston on May 7, 1978:

The Party’s summation of the rebellion was definitely not what spontaneously arose from the masses, even though many of those who had participated and others were very proud of the rebellion. It was up to the conscious forces to take this summation broadly among the masses and to fight for it.

The basic purpose of agitation and propaganda remains essentially the same even after the proletarian seizure of power, and during the entire period of socialist society. Mao, speaking specifically of the peasants here, makes a remark which is more broadly true under socialism: “The basic requirement of political work is constantly to imbue the peasant masses with a socialist ideology and to criticize capitalist tendencies”.

The Central Importance of Agitation and Propaganda- Just how important is agitation and propaganda? Lenin said that “the basis and chief content of our work is to develop the political understanding of the masses.” And he also said, that “the principal content of the activity of our Party” should always be “work of political agitation, connected throughout Russia, illuminating all aspects of life, and conducted among the broadest possible strata of the masses.”

Lenin even said that:

To a great extent, the purpose of our strict separation as a distinct and independent party of the proletariat consists in the fact that we always and undeviatingly conduct this Marxist work of raising the whole working class, as far as possible, to the level of Social-Democratic [i.e., communist] consciousness, allowing no political gales, still less political changes of scenery, to turn us away from this urgent task. Without this work, political activity would inevitably degenerate into a game, because this activity acquires real importance for the proletariat only when and insofar as it arouses the mass of a definite class, wins its interest, and mobilizes it to take an active, foremost part in events. This work, as we have said, is always necessary.

But note that while Lenin is saying here that politics, and political leadership, is a “game” if not accompanied by constant Marxist educational work, he is at the same time drawing a distinction between politics (or political leadership) and educational work.

Lenin says that the core of agitational work is the political exposure of the enemy, and emphasized its importance as follows:

“A basic condition for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organization of comprehensive political exposure. In no way except by means of such exposures can the masses be trained in political consciousness and revolutionary activity”

And later he summed this up by saying that:

We have seen that the conduct of the broadest political agitation and, consequently, of all-sided political exposures is an absolutely necessary and a paramount task of our activity, if this activity is to be truly Social-Democratic [communist].

The Party Programme is the Basis For Our Agitation and Propaganda- The world is complicated, and there are always many issues, many questions, many things which can be focused on in our agitational and propaganda work. Isn’t there some guide for Marxists as to where our work of political education should be focused? Yes, there is. The party and its ideology provide several levels of such guidance. At the most abstract level there is the general theory of Marxism-Leninism itself. At the next level is the guidance provided by the party Programme. And then there are the more specific points of guidance for our educational work that appear in the party press and in the form of directives from the party center. If, for example, the party newspaper devotes a great deal of attention to a certain issue, it is safe to assume that it should be a focus of agitational work for party members.

But for the moment, I want to discuss the middle-level of guidance here, the party Programme, and emphasize its importance. A party Programme is not something to be written and then filed away and forgotten (as with bourgeois parties). The Programme of a proletarian party is the product of an enormous amount of effort and thought, and is constructed for the purpose of guiding the work of the whole party. Of course that includes our work of political education, since that is our highest task. If the party is any good, it will have a really good Programme. And if the Programme is really good, it will be the result not only of the higher-level guidance of the theory of Marxism-Leninism, but also the extensive application of the mass line.

Speaking of the Bolshevik party Programme, Lenin said:

The special sections of our programme dealing with the questions of government, finances, and labor legislation, and with the agrarian question, provide exact and definite material to guide the entire work of every propagandist and agitator, in all its many aspects; they should enable him to particularize on our election platform in speaking before any audience, on any occasion, and on any subject.

And in answer to the confusion about the purpose of the party Programme shown by some party members, Lenin said:

Lastly, Comrade Yegorov asked the authors of the Programme what the Programme signified. Is the Programme, he asked, a conclusion drawn from our basic conceptions of the economic evolution of Russia, a scientific anticipation of the possible and inevitable result of political changes (in which case Comrade Yegorov might agree with us)? Or is our Programme a practical slogan for agitation? In that case we could not beat the record of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the Programme must be regarded as incorrect. I must say that I do not understand the distinction Comrade Yegorov draws. If our Programme did not meet the first condition, it would be incorrect and we could not accept it. If, however, the Programme is correct, it cannot but furnish a slogan of practical value for purposes of agitation. The contradiction between Comrade Yegorov’s two alternatives is only a seeming one; it cannot exist in fact, because a correct theoretical decision guarantees enduring success in agitation. And it is for enduring success that we are working, not in the least disconcerted by temporary reverses.

Lenin’s stand could hardly be clearer: the party Programme must guide our agitational and propaganda work. But now I see a look of discomfort and consternation forming on the brows of some of my readers…

On the one hand our agitation must be guided by the questions and concerns on the minds of the masses, and on the other hand our agitation must be guided by our Marxist theory and Programme. Is there a contradiction here? Well, actually, yes there is. But what is its nature? According to many people this contradiction is irresolvable; in other words, both things cannot be true. Right opportunists see an irresolvable contradiction here, and therefore downplay any guidance from revolutionary Marxist theory in educational work, and at the same time modify what should be a revolutionary Programme into a bourgeois-populist reformist Programme. “Left” sectarians also see an irresolvable contradiction here, focus entirely on the ultimate revolutionary goal, and therefore ignore the immediate questions on the minds of the masses that must be addressed if we are to raise their revolutionary consciousness and actually get to that revolutionary goal.

The correct positions here is that both our Marxist theory and Programme, and the questions and concerns on the minds of the masses must guide our agitation and propaganda work and that these things complement each other and interpenetrate. As I already mentioned, the party program itself should be based not only on scientific revolutionary theory but also on a concrete analysis of the overall situation and the extensive application of the class line to determine the general approach toward revolution for the broad masses and their class struggles. The additional guidance from the party center which comes from further application of the class line, and indeed the constant application of the class line by the whole party, supplements the party Programme, adjusts it somewhat over the short term, and fleshes it out on a day-to-day basis. Only if the Programme is in fundamental error in its general guidance will the further application of the mass line provide political guidance in basic opposition to it. And in that case, it is time to construct a new party Programme.

There are other important principles besides the constant application of the mass line which may sometimes seem to some people to be in opposition to the party Programme, but which cannot really be in opposition to it if the Programme is a sound, Marxist document. It is true, for example, as Mao said, that “we should teach the masses to understand their own long-term interests”, and that in fact this is a cornerstone principle of our agitation and propaganda work. But this is not in opposition to the principle that the party Programme must form the basis for our agitation and propaganda because the party Programme itself (if the party is a real proletarian party) will reflect and focus on precisely the real long-term interests of the masses.

The task of political exposures is the prime obligation of every professing revolutionary working class According to Lenin, without this work (propaganda and agitation), political activity would inevitably degenerate into a game, because this activity acquires real importance for the proletariat only when and insofar as it arouses the mass of a definite class, wins its interest, and mobilizes it to take an active, foremost part in events. This work, as we have said, is always necessary.

Now let us put this into concrete sense, those leaders belonging to progressive left who are now inside the bureaucracy of President Noynoy Aquino (the president is the chief executive of the ruling class), politically, they have lost their political independence by the time they supported Noynoy Aquino and as what Lenin has been pointing out and criticizing long time ago vis-à-vis the struggle of the working class for political power under the banner of socialist revolution.

The inter-classist movement in the Philippines is initiated by the leftist Maoist movement. This is one of their “three magic weapons” for their bourgeois national-democratic revolution. Its concept of revolution is the Stalinist “bloc of four classes” (i.e., alliance of workers, peasants, and petty-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie). That’s why it is part of its basic principles the tactical alliance with the faction of the ruling class. But this Maoist strategy is also practice by the anti-Maoist leftists in the Philippines. This only means that frontism of whatever type is inherent to all leftist currents to derail the proletariat to achieve its own class consciousness. The very reason why for more than 40 years (4 decades), no working class revolution has been won in the Philippines is because of this inter-classist movement by both RAs and RJs.

When the proletarian movement integrates itself to the struggle of the non-proletarian classes especially with the faction of the capitalist class, it weakens itself as a class. In 1986, the relatively strong militant workers movement was weaken due to the united front policy and armed guerilla actions of the Maoist CPP. In 2001, the already weak proletarian movement was further weakened by the inter-classist “People Power” to oust Joseph Estrada. Now, once again, all factions of the bourgeoisie and the unions are calling the atomized and demoralized workers to participate in the struggles led by its class enemy.

What happened in Latin America is also what happened in 1986 and 2001 in the Philippines: “The fact that significant parts of the proletariat have been sucked into these revolts is of the greatest importance, because it marks a profound loss of class autonomy. Instead of seeing themselves as proletarians with their own interests, workers in Bolivia and Argentina saw themselves as citizens sharing common interests with the petty-bourgeois and non-exploiting strata.” (ICC, ‘Popular revolts’ in Latin America: Its class autonomy is vital to the proletariat).

AKBAYAN (NAPC Sec. Joel Rocamora) and ALAB KATIPUNAN (NAPC Asec Gina Dela Cruz), in tandem, implementing the program of the ruling elite (as now represented by Pnoy as the Chief Executive of the bourgeoisie), the program of deception, making the poor people believe that there will be a turn of "tatsulok" as the song runs this way (Hindi pulat dilaw tunay na magkalaban, Ang kulay at tatak ay di syang dahilan. Hanggat marami ang lugmok sa kahirapan At ang hustisya ay para lang sa mayaman. Habang may tatsulok at sila ang nasa tuktok Di matatapos itong gulo. Totoy kumilos ka, baliktarin ang tatsulok Tulad ng dukha, nailagay mo sa tuktok). All phrases about reforms, better life, walang mahirap kung walang corrupt and development of the poor they (Joel and Gina) are talking to are bourgeois lies, the objective purpose of which is to divert the masses from the revolutionary struggle for socialism! The program of Pnoy on the basis of bourgeois relations, the Socialists are helping the deception of the people by the bourgeoisie, whose aim is to divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution. It is as clear as daylight that instead of exposing, unmasking and condemning this hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie gov't, the unanimous desire of the chauvinist traitors to Socialism to deceive the masses. Whoever promises the masses “progress and better life today" without at the same time preaching the class struggle and socialist revolution, or while repudiating the struggle for it—the struggle which must be carried on now,—is deceiving the proletariat (as Lenin pointed out many times).

for those interested in joining local alternative politics; in Caloocan City, Philippines

Please be counted in spreading the crucial need for program-based alternative politics!; against traditional politics (TRAPO)!

please join me in leading an urban poor local electoral struggle.

Please request your friends in caloocan to gather 10 recruits who shall each recruit 10 more registered voters in support of the campaign of Friends of Joseph "Ose" Aquino Movement for City Councilor, 1st District, Caloocan City, Philippines;

Please invite 100 thousand votes to ensure the representation of the marginalized and our principled voices in the City Council of Caloocan;

Your active solidarity will complete the space in the challenge to beat Patronage Politics; those who have generous friends who may want to send their small assistance can be of big help if such assistance are without strings aatached (so to evade political debts)

keyboard touches and your fingers are mighthier than the sword!

Makiisa! MakiOSEyoso! Alternatibong Pulitika!

Please see blog at the multiply website on Program of Governance of Joseph "Ose" Aquino for City Councilor Movement, 1st District, Caloocan City;

Please click or copy and post the link hereunder at your browser:

http://oseaquino.multiply.com/journal/item/137/PHASES-OSE_Program_of_Governance_of_JOSEPH_OSE_AQUINO_for_CITY_COUNCILOR_Movement

Hello Joseph, Just dropping in, saw that you too like classic music! That's
great. Please visit to my Multiply site (music).
Best greetings from Finland!
Martti

hi Joseph, kumusta!

my e-mail: gus@fes.org.ph

sige, abangan ko e-mail mo. Thanks for dropping by my site.

-gus

my other personal networking websites:

http://twitter.com/oseaquino

http://oseaquino.multiply.com/

http://www.youtube.com/oseaquino

http://www.imeem.com/oseaquino

http://www.linkedin.com/in/oseaquino

http://community.eldis.org/oseaquino

http://hi5.com/friend/profile/displaySameProfile.do?userid=344232443

http://www.friendster.com/oseaquino
http://profiles.friendster.com/oseaquino

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1424267165&ref=name

Thanks for visiting my site. Glad to see you here! Good to see also your family, cute kids!