Regletto Aldrich Imbong

This paper will discuss the peace building efforts of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and argue that these efforts follow the proceduralist conception of Habermas’ deliberative democracy. Habermas, like Kant, contends that peace has a “chronological and ontological priority over violence.”1 The paper will problematize the gap between legality and legitimacy as highlighted by Habermas and relate how such a gap triggered conflicts the same as that of the GRP and the NDFP. I will then propose a communicative process of critique and intervention from civil liberty groups, especially the Church sector, as an avenue to possibly remedy the gaps and its effects. Finally, I will outline possible problems arising from this model of deliberative democracy.

This paper will examine the concrete appropriation of Leninism in the Philippine communist movement. It will further trace the triadic convergence between Leninism, the Philippine Revolution, and Badiouian emancipatory politics. It will argue that three essential Leninist concepts are appropriated by the current Philippine Revolution: the vanguard party, the basic alliance of the peasants and the workers, and the united front work. It will also discuss Badiouian emancipatory politics, and particularly highlight Badiou’s treatment on the question of organization or the party of the new type vis-à-vis the need to wage emancipatory struggles against neoliberal capitalism. The paper will conclude by positing three crucial points as necessary for an emancipatory politics: evental rupture with the state, reconstitution of the organization or party of a new type as a political necessity, and the recognition and forging of a broader revolutionary unity with other sites of oppression.

This paper addresses specific concerns that emerge as a consequence to the current educational reforms in the Philippines. These concerns are philosophical and pedagogical. The philosophical concern underscores the importance to situate philosophical thought within concrete historical conditions. In this way, philosophy does not only become a pure abstract enterprise, but an intellectual struggle at the service of historical novelties. I propose a philosophical paradigm that values collective practice at the service of truth. As new situations demand new interpretations and contextualization, I shall also employ a philosophical discourse and practice not only contemporary to, but also one of the bests of our times: the philosophy of Alain Badiou. The pedagogical concern elucidates the political nature of education, which is what Critical Pedagogy argues essentially. This paradigm puts importance above all on the role critical knowledge and collective practice plays in the educational and socio-political arena. The critical pedagogy which I propose is not far from the emancipation politics also embedded in Badiouian Philosophy. Hence, there is a connection between the kind of philosophy I propose and the pedagogical paradigm I present as an alternative. From the philosophical and pedagogical arguments presented, I shall argue for the need to rescue education from the influence of neoliberalism. The resistance necessitates the movement of the collective through the agency of the teacher-militant.

Communist discourses are resurging in various disciplines across the globe. Philosophy has its share of this resurgence especially after the global financial crisis of 2008 made a number of its thinkers convene in various conferences and intellectually meet in a host of publications. In these intellectual engagements, the idea of communism is once again interrogated as the moribund capitalist system failed humanity its promise. Alain Badiou is among the leading figures in the philosophical task of (re)interrogating the idea of communism. Badiou raised the urgency of reformulating what he calls as the communist hypothesis for it to both reconsider its supposed failures of the past and better suit the current conditions. Badiou is particularly guided by the lessons of the May ’68 of France, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of China, and various contemporary popular uprisings to develop a reformulation of the communist hypothesis. In advancing a laborious task of reformulation, Badiou inevitably rejected a core category of the Marxist-Leninist tradition: the party. The rejection is supported by a view of the party that reduced it to its supposed fusion with the State, i.e., the party-State fusion. Such a fusion is characterized by either parliamentarian or insurrectionary politics. In this politics, Badiou argues that the party is obstructed from advancing further the proletarian revolution as it is tied to a Statist procedure. This work develops a Maoist reformulation of the communist hypothesis. Along the course of the socialist constructions of Russia and China, certain moments of what can be called as indigenized and mobilizational politics characterized periods that escape what Badiou reduced the party into, i.e., the party-State fusion. The Maoist notions of the mass line and protractedness come out as indispensable requisites in developing the concepts of indigenized and mobilizational politics. These moments depicted what can be called as the party-masses fusion and provided practical resources not only for the rectification of the supposed failures of the past but also for a reformulation of the communist hypothesis. Through the development and employment of the category of the party-masses fusion and the politics that determine it, the reformulation of the communist hypothesis is supported by a discourse of success rather than of defeat.

This paper argues that the current scholarship of radical politics primarily bannered by Christopher Ryan Maboloc is a misappropriation of the postMarxist political project of Mouffe and Laclau. Drawing primarily both on Mouffe’s and Laclau’s work Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics and an interview with Chantal Mouffe herself, the paper argues how the post-Marxist radical political project of Mouffe and Laclau fails to theoretically fit to the style of governance and regime of Duterte. Fundamental to the idea of radical democratic politics is the task of radicalizing liberal democracy. However, as discussed in the paper, liberal democracy is a project whose very institutions and processes Duterte and his regime have undermined and attacked. Under Duterte’s regime, radical democracy lost the conditions for its flourishing, rendering its own impossibility.

In the essay “Police Power: The Biopolitical State Apparatus and Differential Interpellations,” Banu Bargu developed the notion of the Biopolitical State Apparatus (BSA). This essay deploys Bargu’s notion of the BSA within what it claims is a militarized police power in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Illustrating how the functioning of militarized police power underpins the implementation of public-health policy and the enforcement of laws that complement such power, the essay will further demonstrate through the BSA concept what police power says about the state under the Duterte regime, how this regime relates to the state of exception and posttruth politics, and how its policing operates in contrast to other states.

Engels’s theoretical works on the labour movement, socialism, and the state supported the realization of proletarian revolutionary movements in many parts of the world. Today, with the resurgence of radical leftist discourses, the communist hypothesis is once again bannered by leading academics and philosophers, most notably by Alain Badiou in his The Communist Hypothesis. He argues that the May 1968 events in France opened a new era and new way of doing politics, which, while critical of the Leninist paradigm, still aims for the overcoming of capitalism. This chapter situates Engels within this so-called new era and uses his theoretical resources to contribute to reformulating the communist hypothesis. I also highlight certain limitations in Engels’s thought with regard to this project.

This book investigates Duterte’s brand of authoritarianism from a multidisciplinary approach. It brings together views from scholars and activists from diverse disciplines and areas of work to investigate the core of Duterte’s disastrous authoritarianism and how it takes specific forms in various contexts (e.g., the church, peace process, discourse, Lumad schools, state). The book and its contributors do not in any way hide behind the language of academic neutrality. What is at work here is an engaged scholarship that does not investigate the problem of authoritarianism from a neutral ground supposedly devoid of all values, beliefs, and interpretations. Rather, the book recognizes scholarship to be a political practice which aims to elucidate a theoretical position that intends not only to understand authoritarianism but also to imagine the prospects for a democratic future.

The Philippine government has been relentless in its counterinsurgency campaigns. From the colonial wars that vilified as insurgents and bandits the honored heroes of today, up to the anti-communist and anti-secessionist civil and military efforts of the postcolonial regimes, these campaigns have not only rolled out large state resources but also cost lives of innocent civilians. Patterned after the United States (US) of America’s principle of low-intensity conflict aimed at countering Marxist and anti-imperialist movements (Reed 1986), counterinsurgency campaigns have unleashed a warfare that indiscriminately target its supposed opponents, including unarmed activists. In 2007, the United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston examined the horrible political situation of the Philippines – characterized by political killings, abductions, and tortures – and identified how state elements, under the blanket protection of waging a counterinsurgency campaign, were responsible for the political repressions then (Sales 2009). Today, under the murderous Duterte regime, the counterinsurgency campaign has reached an unprecedented level of ferocity as it is waged through a militarist whole-ofnation approach composed by multi-level government and multi-agency responses. Being greatly influenced by the US, counterinsurgency campaigns in the Philippines follow the paranoiac and hysterical communist witch-hunt of McCarthyism (Hutchins-Viroux 2008). The hysteria’s contemporary and local expression is the phenomenon called red- or terror-tagging.1 Terror-tagging is the systematic process of maliciously naming or identifying an individual or group as a communist and/or terrorist by its association with a supposed communist and/or terrorist group. Being a systematic process, it is initiated and sustained by state elements with the view of maligning or defaming political activists. Terror-tagging is aimed against activists, dissenters, and even the political opposition. The social activist Rhoda Dalang (2014) has noted how terror-tagging has been deployed by the Philippine state in its counterinsurgency efforts, from the Marcos up to the then Aquino regime. And until the previous Duterte regime, yet with increased intensity and fatality, terror-tagging continued to defame and liquidate activists. As terror-tagging has not received enough academic attention, this chapter aims to fill this gap by providing a preliminary analysis of it. The chapter will be doing a critical discourse analysis. It will take off from a revealing study done by Don Kevin Hapal and Raisa Serafica of Rappler, a media outlet in the Philippines. Through a separate discourse analysis of Facebook posts of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTFELCAC),2 the chapter will also identify aspects of terror-tagging. The discussion will further be theorized using the Marxist analysis of the State and informed by interviews of Atty. Maria Sol Taule and Cristina Palabay. They are both human rights workers who have worked with terror-tagged activists and are themselves subjected to terror-tagging.

As a theoretical framework in the Science and Technology Studies (sts) scholarship, the sociotechnical imaginaries approach (sta) has provided a conceptual framework and methodology that not only overcome the deterministic understanding of technological development but also theorized the relationship between society on the one hand, and science and technology on the other. However, as will be pointed out, a limitation of the sta renders it incapable of problematizing what I will call as the technopolitics of specialization, defined as the organization of unequal positions based on the capitalist centers’ control over techno-epistemic networks set against the backdrop of a neocolonial relation. Such an incapacity glosses over the persistence of neocolonialism and dependency especially in the Global South. This paper aims to reimagine the theoretical framework of the sociotechnical imaginaries by developing a critical review of its approach. The paper will place in dialogue the most recent and relevant conceptual developments of the sta and the dependency theory of Samir Amin. The paper will present how the most relevant literature concerning the sta work on the assumption that every polity has control over existing techno-epistemic networks from which imaginaries are independently defined. The paper will argue that given the notion of international specialization developed by Samir Amin and presupposed today in the sta, the technopolitics of specialization monopolizes control of the techno-epistemic networks thereby constraining the imaginaries of peripheral countries.

In this paper, I develop a concept of “good food” by placing in dialogue Albert Borgmann’s notions of focal things and practices with the experiences of two Lumad groups in Mindanao, Philippines, the Manobos and the Blaans. The “availability” of contemporary food, resulting from the “device paradigm,” creates an atrophic existence rooted in social and material disengagement with food production. I argue that the experiences of these two Lumad groups offer rich examples of Borgmann’s focal practices that show how to conceptualize good food in a technological world. This concept can be concretely realized through practices of food and technical democracy which institutionalize the values of the communalist and collectivist experiences of these Lumad groups.

This paper discusses the significance of violence in Alain Badiou’s concept of emancipatory politics. In literatures that affirm revolutionary ideas, violence is often justified as a legitimate form of resistance. This for example was explained by Fanon and Marx. There is a need to carefully study violence as a modality of resistance for two reasons. First, the discourse on violence as a modality of resistance must position itself away from the defensive side of the political spectrum. Its revolutionary and liberating possibility has been undermined as it is assumed, rather than argued, by dominant discourse as fundamentally unacceptable. A discourse on violence which is positive in nature must be articulated not only for the purpose of defending and rescuing such a revolutionary means from all the vilifying campaigns of contemporary reaction, but most of all to posit violence, borrowing from Badiou’s emancipatory politics, as a consequence of a positive or affirmative revolutionary creative act. Second, any affirmation of violence as a modality of resistance must not be confused with an absolution from political responsibility. Violence needs to recognize its own limits so as not to commit the grave historical error with finally identifying itself with terror and defeating its own emancipatory goals. Consciously minding violence’s restrictions renders such a modality of resistance not only effective but above all a powerful condition for the construction of the New.

As the Philippines continues to grapple with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, new modalities of instruction are being devised by the administration of Rodrigo Duterte, through the Department of Education (DepEd). Among these are what the DepEd provided as self-learning modules (SLMs) combined with “alternative learning delivery modalities” which include radio-based instruction (DepEd 2020). The SLMs and radiobased instruction are the most common modalities of learning, being the most accessible especially for the poor students of the country. This paper will examine the pedagogical and political dimensions of a radio-based instruction. Coming from the tradition of philosophy of technology that emphasizes the political nature of technology, I will argue how the logic of radio broadcasting predetermines a specific pedagogy and form of communication. I will further argue how this predetermined form of communication carries the danger of being an effective support for authoritarianism.

The recent political developments in the Philippines require a reevaluation of the nature of the State under the Rodrigo Duterte regime. Just years ago, scholars illustrated the regime of Duterte to be a populist, illiberal, or authoritarian one. But since then, and especially during the pandemic, a lot of things have changed. In this paper, I will argue that Duterte’s regime is a fascist one. Unlike how Walden Bello characterized Duterte as a fascist original, a characterization laden with theoretical inconsistencies and practical difficulties, I will develop a concept of fascism proper to the neoliberal and semi-colonial conditions of the Philippines. I will likewise trace the rise, development, and stabilization of the regime’s fascism. The discussion will be supported and illuminated by some illustrative examples taken from the experience of the mass movement in Cebu.

Years before his death, Romualdo Abulad made himself controversial, a controversy that was not so much on his positive contribution to philosophy as his apology for Duterte and his regime. In this paper, Abulad’s apology for Duterte will be discussed. The discussion will be framed from within Abulad’s concept of the post-Machiavelli. This concept was earlier developed by Abulad in a chapter of a book co-authored by Alfredo Co. I argue that his concept of the post-Machiavelli is based on a privileging of The Prince and a reading that is subtly anti-Machiavellian. I further argue that the ethics of the post-Machiavelli, one that is guided by the philosophical compass of postmodernism, provided the ideological support for Duterte and his regime as it is both obscurantist and empty. The ethics of the post-Machiavelli obscures the politics of the regime by way of the ethics of the good. In doing so it legitimizes the political via the ethical. Here, the coupling or intersection of the political and the ethical provided an ideological support of the former by way of the abstract resources of the latter. However, I assert that ethics and politics ought to be decoupled. The ethics of the post-Machiavelli is likewise empty. Such an emptiness allows, at least in the level of theory, a liberal openness and accommodation to virtually any version of (a future) order, including that of fascism.