Red is a spectrum – The Manila Times

THERE cannot be any debate about it. The Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF) is an enemy of the Republic. After all, it is a rebel group whose members took up arms with the main intent of eventually taking over if not a major part of the Philippine territory, then its entirety.

And this is where we have to take issue with how Sen. Loren Legarda has painted the CPP-NPA-NDF as otherwise.

The more fundamental offense committed by Legarda, to my mind, is that her cavalier treatment of the leftist ideology, where she collapsed a broad spectrum of different shades of red into one homogeneous entity, has done all leftist ideologues a total disservice. In her desire to defend progressive people espousing leftist platforms from being red-tagged, she, in fact, carelessly simplified and offered them up for further red-tagging.

We can only second-guess Legarda's real intent, but what she has done is practically summarize and homogenize the dynamism of what comprises the left, equating the ideas of those who adhere to left-wing politics and who espouse a more progressive political platform with the CPP-NPA-NDF. This is a highly irresponsible simplification.

To be left or right is determined by someone's view of the economy. Being on the left means believing that globalization should primarily serve humanity instead of the interests of global corporations, that corporate interests should be regulated to protect the environment because they wouldn't do so if they are left alone, and that corporations should have social responsibility and should not be fixated on profits only. A leftist believes in economic regulation and in protecting the marginalized, even if it means interfering with the operations of the free market. Hence, leftists believe in minimum wages and price controls. They believe in taxing the rich more, and using taxes to finance social programs that would even include investing in the arts. While some leftists are socially authoritarian, most leftists are socially libertarian. They adhere to individual freedom, and would support divorce, same-sex marriages and abortion. They oppose the death penalty.

Get the latest news delivered to your inbox

Sign up for The Manila Times daily newsletters

Being an activist for these causes, and questioning state authority, when done peacefully and under the ambit of laws, should not and cannot be considered as dangerous to the Republic. Under these rubrics, I am personally a leftist who is also a social libertarian. My score in the political compass test is a minus 6.88, with minus 10 being the score for being perfectly leftist, and a minus 7.23, with minus 10 being the score for being perfectly libertarian. I am not even a centrist by all accounts.

There has been too much confusion in the way popular and ordinary discourse has branded the left as essentially communist, and then further committing an egregious error of associating communism only with the armed left. Some even go to the extent of associating the left in general, and communism in particular, with authoritarian regimes. This is the ground from where red-tagging emerges as a pejorative, where liberal-progressives who espouse leftist and libertarian beliefs end up being lumped together with Marxist, Leninist and Maoist rebels, and worse, terrorists.

This corruption of political labels and categories has to end. Being leftist is different from being an armed rebel, in the same manner that being an activist does not necessarily mean that one has taken up arms to topple the government. Likewise, it is a fallacy to contrast communism with democracy, considering that there are communist and socialist parties that compete in democratic elections in countries like India.

The ideal response to red-tagging is to clarify that not all kinds of red should be tagged as enemies of the state. Environmental activists who propose green economies tend to be leftist in orientation, and so are feminists and gay activists. Organized labor unions tend to be leftist in orientation. The hatred being espoused by many diehard Duterte supporters and Marcos loyalists toward liberal activists, that even translate to their dislike of the US Democrats, is misplaced simply because they are premised on fallacious imaging and assumptions. There are many good people who are fighting for socially relevant causes that under these misinformed rubrics would fall in the category of enemies of the state. A cursorial look at history would reveal that practically all major social benefits that people now enjoy, from wage protection to social amelioration policies, are largely the result of leftist and progressive activism. These include giving ayuda (financial assistance) and educational assistance.

It is here that Senator Legarda's statement may have done a lot of damage, when she irresponsibly and carelessly implied that good leftists and social progressives engaged in social activism and legitimate criticism are in the same basket as the armed cadres who impose revolutionary taxes, bomb cell site towers, conscript children and arm them, all with the intent of eventually toppling the government. What she did only further forced the misinformed hatred toward anything left to fester, and its adherents to double down in their prejudices and biases.

Having said this, it is important to point out that much as taking up arms can never be countenanced, there has to be an understanding of the backstories of people who rebel against government. While one cannot condone political violence, there should be an open mind to the reasons why people rebel. Certainly, being displaced by land grabbing capitalists, and being targeted for persecution by paramilitary groups on the mere suspicion of being a rebel, would push people to take justice in their own hands. It is hypocrisy to justify Chao Tiao Yumul's rampage as an act of desperation but condemn those who rebel. Much as we condemn the violence, it is a fact that the state failed them.

The solution to political violence is not red-tagging but to make sure that the interests of the marginalized are served by legitimate institutions of the state. And the better response to red-tagging is to show that some types of red are, in fact, essential in achieving that end.

Read the original post:

Red is a spectrum - The Manila Times