Postscript 2002



 (August 2002)

By Mila D. Aguilar

There may have been cause for my fear in 1980 that once the enemy got hold of “Grasp the Principle of Revolutionary Mass Movements,” they could make use of it for their own purposes.

For I could glean from it a general principle of mass organizing and propaganda that, bereft of a revolutionary cause, could be applied to any popular political movement out to seize power, or even just some form of economic ascendancy.

The Party could be replaced with a tight group as committed to its cause, whatever that cause was.  That group could wield two other concentric circles, one for a more expansive rationale allied to its own, the largest a loose aggrupation basically unaware of the central cause but vaguely admiring it.

This tight group could, with enough funds, generate propaganda for its unnamed goal, through it successively building up its organization, until conditions could warrant the launching of a mass movement of some kind.

The question was if a group as committed to its aims as the Party could ever be had.  Once the Party faltered in its reading of the political situation in 1983, however, the situation became rife for such groups to spring up.  The first such replacements came out of the bowels of social democracy in the country.

EDSA I was successfully carried through without the direct aid of the Communist Party of the Philippines, while using its gains over the years.

From then on, mass movements and their leadership became an open arena.  Even the forces of Erap could afford to launch an “EDSA III.” 

And if we don’t watch out, Statehood U.S.A. could do the same thing, at great detriment to the national good.

So do I still subscribe to the principles I set down in 1978?

Yes, definitely.  My question, however, is: Which group, this time, will lead?  And where will it bring us?

Not to perdition, I pray.



    © 2006-2020 All rights reserved