Category: rizal

Rizal and socialism (3)

By Elmer Ordonez

UTOPIAN socialism may well have been an influence on Rizal—considering that his close friend Juan Luna enthused over Le socialisme contemporain, described as “a conflation” of various schools of socialist thought from utopians like St. Simon and Robert Owen to Marxist, anarchists and Christian socialists. Rizal could not well have advocated the more radical strains of socialism in his North Borneo (Sandakan) settlement project despite his use of an anarchist character in Simoun in his second novel El Filibusterismo and the fact that his Noli, although devoid of anarchism, was first translated into another European language by anarchists Ramon Sempau and Henri Lucas, whom Isabelo de los Reyes befriended in Montjuich castle prison.

The utopian spirit in fact pervades in the literature of the prime movers of the Philippine revolution like Andres Bonifacio in his “Dapat mabatid ng mga Tagalog” and Emilio Jacinto’s “Kartilya,” both published in the one issue of Kalayaan, the Katipunan publication. Apolinario Mabini in his Decalogue also manifested the moral and ethical foundations of an imagined Filipino community; Rizal’s musings through his characters like PilosopongTasyo and Padre Florentino and his last thoughts of motherland in “Mi Utimo Adios” attest to an idealized national community, an Eden lost (because of colonialism) that must be regained through education and struggle for freedom.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Europe was entering what left writers call “the age of early globalization” marked by social and political unrest, imperialist ventures, and the beginnings of the disintegration of ruling dynasties that culminated in the First World War and its aftermath, revolutions in many countries like the Russian in October 1917.

What Rizal must have sensed during his writing of his second novel Fili (from 1988-1890) found their way into the novel. The terrorist acts of anarchists during the period – bombings and assassinations — were a regular occurrence. Rizal’s death by firing squad, it is argued, must have caused indirectly to the assassination of Spain’s president Canova in 1897. The U.S. annexation of the Philippines in 1899 was followed by the assassination of President McKinley in Buffalo, New York, the following year. Both were assassinations were carried out by anarchists

It would seem that at the time of Rizal’s exile to Dapitan and before the turn of the century the anarchist movement had already decided to bring about radical social change through deeds, to destroy government and raze the cities and build new societies. The age of propaganda through literature had given way to a period of action according to the anarchist vision.

In Rizal’s Fili, Simoun the anarchist had a dual mission, to destroy the colonial establishment that persecuted him and his family and to rescue Maria Clara, Ibarra’s beloved, from the nunnery. His bombing mission failed and no mayhem took place. Simoun as the disguised Ibarra learned too late about the sad fate of his beloved. Simoun was not a failed anarchist terrorist, and so was Conrad’s character Verloc in The Secret Agent (1905) who inveigled his wife’s half-wit brother to blow up Greenwich observatory, symbol of western science, ending up with the bomber blowing himself to bits instead.

It was then deemed doubtful that the anarchists would be interested in also publishing Fili with a failed anarchist character and with personal reasons for carrying out his terrorist project.

Of Rizal’s contemporaries, Isabelo de los Reyes was the one most influenced by anarchist and Marxist socialism by virtue of his close association with the radicals in the notorious Montjuich in Barcelona. He was first brought to this jail after his arrest in the wake of the 1896 revolution; when released he immediately joined in the street fighting in Barcelona, armed with a revolver. Despite his earlier differences with Rizal, Isabelo is believed to be responsible for the posthumous publication of the first translation of Noli in 1898, albeit bowdlerized with its strictures on the friars and the church, toned down. The anarchist publication series was interested in Noli for just depicting a colonial society.

Isabelo de los Reyes managed to return to the country in 1901 lugging with him books by Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, Zola, Malatesta, and others. He organized the Union Obrero Democratico, but he was arrested later by American authorities for leading workers strikes and marches. He entered politics and won a seat in the city municipal board and later in the Senate. He went to the Senate riding in a caretela, refusing the use of a car because it consumed gasoline sold by big business. He lived in the working class district of Tondo. Poor health forced him to devote his time to the Philippine Independence church which he founded with Gregorio Aglipay.

New leaders took over the union which had changed its name – leaders from both the ilustrado and working class like Dr. Dominador Gomez, Lope K. Santos, Herminigildo Cruz, and Juan Feleo. Santos would write the first socialist novel Banaag At Sikat (1906). It was a matter of time for proletarian leaders, armed with the socialist vision of Marx, Engels and Lenin, to gain ascendancy in worker organizing and national liberation struggles.

Rizal was a trailblazer in this respect.

 

Rizal and socialism

By Elmer Ordonez

In the wake of recent conferences/lectures on Jose Rizal, one theme about Rizal is worth revisiting—his encounter with socialism in all its hues in Europe and how he used it in his novels.

Two dominant strains of socialism vied for allegiance of intellectuals in late 19th century Europe—Marxist socialism and Bakuninian anarchism. It appears that the latter made more inroads and influenced the ilustrados including Rizal. As early as the 1872 Cavite Mutiny, Spanish authorities worried about radical ideas among leaders of the revolt –for which a whole generation of ilustrados were arrested, executed, and exiled abroad.  Click here for the rest

rizal’s twist of death

i’ve always been fascinated by rizal’s final act of defiance, twisting around to die on his back with his face to the sun.

He took his stand facing the bay, his back to the rising sun. The drums rolled, the shout of command was given, and the Remingtons of the 70th fired. With one last convulsive effort of the will Rizal twisted his body rightward as he fell, his last sight being perhaps the hard empty eyes of the professional soldiers, companions in arms of those who had impassively lowered Tarsilo down the well and hunted down Elias as he swam in his own blood.

that’s from Leon Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino: A Biography of Jose Rizal (Manila: Guerrero Publishing, 1998 [1963]), pp. 443-448 posted in The Diaries of Jose Rizal.

and from ambeth ocampo’s facebook discussion board — Topic: Did Rizal deliberately turn around to face the firing squad during his execution? noel villaroman in a letter to ocampo posits that it was the impact of the bullets that caused the almost 180-degree turn.

At the exact moment the Remingtons were fired, the bullets almost instantaneously hit Rizal at his back because he was less than ten meters away from the frontline soldiers. My guess is that this caused his body to swing to the right in an almost 180 degree-turn because of the impact of the bullets. Now, in the eyes of the witnesses situated 331 meters or more from the firing squad, it seemed that Rizal first turned around (because light waves reached them first) and then after a full second or so they heard the gunshots (because sound waves reached them later).

The Encyclopedia Rizaliana, edited by Jose A Fadul, has an entry that says “Rizal was said to have made a last-moment effort to turn to face his executioners upon hearing ‘Fuego!’” I also recall that, in one of your books, you stated that “Rizal made that carefully choreographed twist he practiced years before that would make him fall face up on the ground.”

finally, from PenelopeVFlores: I was at Dr. Jose Rizal’s Execution: 30 Dec.1896. Bagumbayan, Manila, by Senor Don Perro.  obviously fictional, a dog’s eye-witness account, but interesting:

My master approached the prisoner. I trotted by my master’s heels and heard him tell Rizal that he will soon give the orders to shoot. Rizal asked not to be blindfolded. My master agreed. “Not necessary,” he explained.

Rizal asked if he could face the firing squad. My master answered, “That’s not possible, I have orders to shoot you in the back.”

“In that case then,” Rizal said “spare my head.” My master paused, and I whimpered, “Master, say yes.” “Yes,” he agreed.

Rizal informed my master that he’d point with his elbow and hitch his shoulder to indicate where the soldiers should aim to hit his heart.

“Thanks,” my master said and asked, “Do you prefer to kneel?”

Rizal said, “No, I’ll stand.”

It was 7:02 am.

A muffled drum roll was sounded.

A minute later I heard my master give the order: MARK. Another second later: FIRE! The impact of eight bullets found their mark. Rizal fell down face upwards.

Nota bene.
Have you often wondered how Rizal could fall with his face upward? When he indicated the side where to shoot him, the body action of raising the right shoulder and the twisting of his elbow ensured his body would fall face up when he was shot.

whatever.  it all tells me that rizal had been determined not to die as a traitor, and that pinag-isipan at pinag-aralan niyang mabuti how to manage that epic twist and defy confound the spaniards one last time.  way to go!

cha-cha crazy

there they go again, chattering about charter change, as if it were even do-able, what a waste of time.   read fr. joaquin bernas’s Finally a new Constitution in 2011?

In my view, one major obstacle to attempts to revise the 1987 Constitution is structural. It has a built-in unintended obstacle to change. And I do not know how this can be overcome this year.

Inmany respects the 1987 Constitution consists of significant borrowings from the 1935 Constitution. Unfortunately, however, the provision on the amendatory process is a carbon copy of the provision in the 1973 Constitution. Year after year since 1987 this has been the major obstacle to change. Why so?

The text says: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) a constitutional convention. . . . The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

The provision is one formulated for a unicameral legislative body but it is now meant to work for a bicameral Congress. This was not a tactical product designed by an evil genius. It is merely the result of oversight. But the oversight has spawned major problems.

First, must Senate and Housecome together in joint session before they can do anything that can lead to charter change? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on this question: Congress could not begin to work on constitutional change unless they first came together in joint session. The 1987 Constitution is non-committal.

Second, since the text of the Constitution is not clear about requiring a joint session, can Congress work on constitutional change analogously to the way it works on ordinary legislation, that is where they are and as they are? I have always maintained that Congress can, but this is by no means a settled matter. There are those who believe that the importance of Charter change demands a joint session.

Third, should Congress decide to come together in joint session, must Senate and House vote separately or may they vote jointly? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on the need for separate voting; the present Constitution is silent about this. But I am sure that the Senate will not agree to a joint voting where their number can be buried in an avalanche of House votes, an avalanche of votes which can mean the abolition of the Senate! How will this issue be settled? Howsoever the matter might be settled by agreement of the majority of both houses, someone in the minority will run to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.

What about a constitutional convention? But the business of calling a constitutional convention is fraught with the same problems. Should Congress choose to call a constitutional convention, must the two houses be in joint session? And if in joint session, should they vote separately?

Briefly, constitutional change in 2011 or later can happen only if the members of Congress can agree to work in harmony and if the Supreme Court will not throw a monkey wrench on how Congress decides to do it. Can the members of Congress rise above self-interest and work together harmoniously? Or are we waiting for an extra-constitutional change?

i like it, this obstacle not designed by some evil genius, rather an oversight of cory’s constitutional commission.   it means that charter change can happen only if and when our legislators get their act together, and that’s just so NOT in any one’s agenda.

extra-constitutional change?   another edsa, he means?   but a successful edsa, a successful revolutionary government, one that brings about deep-seated change, is soooo not in the stars, not until a true leader rises, one in the mold of rizal or bonifacio but wise to the ways of the world today and highly-biased for the filipino.