Rizal, Marxism, Philippine Nationalism: Revisited

Rodrigo Abenes
Philippine Normal University

This article is another Rizal study. It attempts to synthesize Rizal, Philippine Nationalism
and Marxism. In the past decades, Marxism 1 had been an anti-thesis of Rizal as far as his
commitment to Philippine Nationalism is concerned. This had been manifested in Renato
Constantino’s projects and writings 2. Such anti-thetical view had been realized because of
Constantino’s attempt to synthesize and reconcile Marxism and Philippine Nationalism. With his
nationalist project of countering the hegemony of US Imperialism in the Philippines in order to
promote national liberation, overthrowing of Rizal as the pre-eminent Philippine National Hero
became necessary for he conceived that Rizal was an Americanized Canonized Hero”. It was for
this reason that “even though nearly 40 years have passed since Veneration Without
Understanding3 was written, the picture painted by Constantino remains the predominant
image of Jose Rizal among many Filipinos and Filipinists” (Couttie, 2007, 3).

This type of typologizing was later on followed by other Filipino Marxists to restudy and
reevaluate Rizal as situated in the 19th century Europe. This sector is divided into Pro’s and
Anti’s as far a Rizal is concerned. Since their aim was to reconcile Marxism and Philippine
Nationalism, some of these Marxist writers tend to look for a new National Hero, which will be
in accordance with Marxism.4 The anti’s concluded that Rizal eschewed Marxism which was
then very prevalent in Europe when he was still there.

“…Rizal missed completely the most advanced; the most scientific

thought which at that time had already started to ‘haunt Europe’.
1
Marxism had been the predominant mode of thinking during the Marcos regime. It was for this reason that
before it is necessary for a nationalist to be radical and therefore Marxist. This, of course resulted to the political
environment during that time. As Bob Couttie would described, “It was a time of global terment. Images of the
Vietnam War brought combat into living rooms worldwide. The Cold war pitched America and its allies against the
Soviet Union and China, with Asia, including the Philippines, as a significant battlefront. An ever present threat of
nuclear annihilation leverafed skepticism towards traditional authority, further fuelled by the increasing economic
power of the youth. Student activism raged from one continent to another, university campuses became war zones
as the confused old world and the confident new world collided.” Please refer to Bob Couttie p. 1 (The End of
Veneration, 2007)
2
This was not Constantino’s initiative. Constantino proceeds on the basis of Agoncillo’s fundamental dichotomy of
reform and revolution. This movement had been realized because of their initiation of writing Philippine History
from the nationalist perspective. (Please refer to Quibuyen’s Rizal, American Hegemony, and Philippine
Nationalism: A Nation Aborted p. 11-15)
3
“Constantino has acquired a status of secular religion with his article denouncing Jose Rizal, Veneration Without
Understanding, representing one of its holy scriptures, to be questioned at risk of treatment of which the medieval
Catholic Inquisition would be proud. It is fair to question whether such an (sic) environment is conducive or
inimical to the development of a nationalist history.“ (Couttie, 5)
4
Radical Nationalism in the Philippines emphasized the Philippine Revolution under Bonifacio as unfinished and
henceforth continued, under working class leadership. Writers such as Teodoro Agoncillo, Renato Constantino
advocated patriotic sentiment by means of revisiting Filipino history in a Filipino perspective.
 Classes and the class relations which were already known in the most
advanced countries of Europe… he did not seem to have touched the
inquiring mind of sensitive an intellect as Rizal.” (Lansang, 1971, 10)

This had been supported by a well-known columnist and historian Ambeth Ocampo.
According to him, “Some scholars wonder why Karl Marx does not figure in Rizal’s writings.
Since there are no references to Marx even in his letters and diaries, some scholars criticize
Rizal for not reading Marx. I have always maintained that Rizal shouldn’t be blamed for what he
did and did not read. At the time Luna5 sent his recommended reading, Rizal was already
working on ‘El Filibusterimo’ where he continues where “Noli me tangere” left off. Here Rizal
also comments on the social condition in his own way” (Ocampo, 2008, 1). He even added that
“…perhaps if Rizal read it, we would have something new to talk about.” Furthermore, others
added that Dr. Jose Rizal did not only rejected Marxism but he also rejected the revolution of
the masses because he belonged to the upper class of the society. It was for this reason that
the Communist Party of the Philippines regarded Dr. Jose Rizal as a traitor to the Filipino people
because Rizal called on the people to lay down their arms a few days before his execution.
(Saulo, 1990) This view had been considered because historians of Marxist orientation have
characterized Rizal as a bourgeoisie thinker repudiating a proletarian revolution. 6 According to
Agoncillo, Rizal’s rejection of Philippine revolution was the result of his bourgeoisie interest
because if revolution will occur, his class will be affected by this phenomenon (Agoncillo, 1956).
Thus, at any case the Anti’s argued that Andres Bonifacio is more worthy than Dr. Jose Rizal. 7
The Pro’s, on the other hand, argued that there is no need to look for a new National Hero
because Dr. Jose Rizal did not rejected Marxism. According to them, if we will: “…look closely at
the Noli and Fili; the class struggle is very much their theme though not as proletariat versus
capitalist class. What were the Spanish Friars and hierarchs if not the exploiters and the Indios
the exploited?” (Jose, 1999, 78)

This had been supported by a well-known international-acclaimed Filipino Marxist

Scholar E. San Juan, Jr. According to him, Rizal had been influenced by Marxism for he “…
displayed an astute dialectical materialist sensibility.” He went further on saying the possibility
of the influence of Marxism in Rizal for:
5
In letter dated May 13, 1891, Luna recommended a book on Rizal. “I am reading ‘Le Socialisme Contemporain’ by
E. de Laveleye, which is a compilation of the theories of Karl Marx, La Salle, etc.; Catholic socialism, the
conservative, the evangelical, etc. I find these most interesting, but what I would like is a book which stresses the
miseries of contemporary society, a kind of ‘Divine Comedy,’ a Dante who would walk through the shops where
one can hardly breathe and where he would see men, women, and children in the most wretched conditio
6
This, of course, resulted due to Contantino’s claim that Rizal is a sponsored hero by the Americans
7
This contention nowadays has been accepted by common Filipino people. They did not focus and also neglect the
teachings and thoughts of Rizal. Consequentially, as David Michael San Juan (2011, 1) would say that “Amidst the
official glorification of Jose Rizal’s writings, a number of scholars tend to focus on the petty details of the national
hero’s life. Substance is sacrificed at the altar of popularization and wanton mass consumption of bogus Rizaliana.
His writings are seldom invoked to contextualize the social problems of contemporary society in academic articles,
thereby diluting the power of his counterhegemonic thought.”
 “Europe was the arena of battle, but more specifically Spain. During
Rizal’s first sojourn in Europe (1882-1887), social ferment was quietly
taking place between the dissolution of the First International Working
Men’s Association in 1881 and the founding of the Second International
in Paris in July 1889 with Marxism as its dominant philosophy. Marx died
in 1883. Meanwhile two volumes of Capital have been published and
were being discussed in Europe during Rizal’s first visit to Paris. Engels
was still alive then, living in London when Rizal was annotating Morga’s
Sucesos at the British Museum in 1888-1889. During his second sojourn
(1888-1891), Rizal completed El Filibusterismo published in Ghent,
Belgium, in 1891. Engels’ writings, in particular AntiDuhring (1877-1878),
have been widely disseminated in German periodicals and argued over.
Given his numerous visits to Germany, Austria, France, Belgium,
England, and Spain, and his contacts with intellectuals (Blumentritt,
Rost, Jagor, Virchow, Ratzel, Meyer, aside from the Spaniards Morayta,
Pi y Margall, Becerra, Zorilla, and others), it was impossible for Rizal to
escape the influence of the socialist movement and its Spanish anarchist
counterpoint. Indeed, a letter (dated 13 May 1891) by his close friend,
the painter Juan Luna, conveyed Luna’s enthusiasm over Le socialisme
contemporaine by E. de Laveleye, “which is a conflation of the theories
of Karl Marx, La Salle, etc; Catholic socialism, the conservative,
evangelical…which stresses the miseries of contemporary society.”

Such environment was recognized by Fr. Raul J. Bonoan S.J in his book entitled The Rizal-
Pastells Correspondence: The Hitherto Unpublished Letters of Jose Rizal and Portions of Fr.
Pablo Pastell’s Fourth Letter and Translation of the Correspondence, together with a Historical
Background and Theological Critique (1994) though did not mentioned about the influence of
Marxism and socialism in Rizal but he made mentioned that “the truth is that Rizal’s European
experience8 brought about a profound and radical change in his approach to his country’s
problems as well as in his general outlook in life.” (Bonoan, 1994, 17) Moreover, others added
8
Thus, taking it into consider it is really crucial to study the environment of 19th Century Europe. It must be noted
that the 19th century Europe was influenced by Hegelianism. This had been manifested if one would be
investigating the life of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). In reading about their life,
almost of their commentators would affirm such environment. It is also worth telling that three years ( May 2,
1879 to be exact) prior to the first sojourn of Rizal (1882) in Spain specifically in Madrid where he enrolled in the
Faculty of Philosophy and Letters and at the same time pursuing his medical studies in the premier university –
Universidad Central de Madrid, Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol (PSOE), a Marxist proletarian party, it evolved
alongside the trade union UGT, which was the basis of its support, was originally founded in Casa Labra Pad (City of
Madrid led by Pablo Iglesias who was considered as the Father of Spanish Socialism. It is also worth telling that
Fernando Giner de los Rios was one of the professors of Rizal in the Universidad Central de Madrid. (Bonoan, 1994)
According to Heywood, de los Rios had direct link with the PSOE. Please refer to Heywood’s Marxism and the
Failure of Organised Socialism in Spain, 1879-1936.
that Dr. Jose Rizal has the knowledge of Marxism and it was manifested in the El Filibusterismo.
They even added that Dr. Jose Rizal’s rejection of violent revolution was due to his Marxist
views. (Fernadez, 1991) But taking into consideration all of these, these Filipino Marxists had
overseen that in Rizal’s second sojourn to Europe as stated in his diary dated November 1, 1891
that he had a conversation9 with a Russian Naturalist about the political condition of his
country. And according to him, “…we talk about the socialism of Tolstoy” (Rizal, 2011, 12) Thus,
with all of these and with the conclusion of 150th birth anniversary of Jose Rizal, this theme
about him is worth revisiting, “particularly his encounter with socialism 10 in all it hues in Europe
and how he used it in his novels.”11 (Ordonez, 2011, 1)

It is, thus, along with these that this study would like to achieve. It hopes to investigate
on how did Rizal used Marxism in his second novel the ‘El Filibusterismo” 12. And if so, it would
like to propose that there is no need to look for new National Hero that would render Marxism
and Philippine Nationalism for its reconciliation has been implied and seen in the ideas and
thoughts in Jose Rizal’s El Filibusterismo. Such had been very important in this study because,
according to Quibuyen, we need a historical materialist reading of Rizal for “we cannot do this,
however, for as long as we are under the spell of Agoncillo’s and Constantino’s vulgar Marxism.
If we are to recover the radical tradition that unified our compatriots, both illustrados and
Katipuneros, towards the forging if the Filipino Nation – a process that the American
imperialism brutally interrupted at the turn of the century – we would do better to look at their
heroic generation through their own eyes” (Quibuyen, 1999, 40)

Thus, in dealing with the problematics of this paper, the researcher divided his work in
to three parts: (1) Basic Tenets of Marxism, (2) Literary Analysis of El Flibusterismo and (3)
Analysis of El Filibusterismo in the light of Marxism

BASIC TENETS OF MARXISM

9
To be clear and precise, here is the words of Rizal “Last night I had a conversation with a Russian naturalist about
the political condition of my country. He asked me if I am a patriot. Not much, I said. He asked if my country is
unfortunate and I answered him by asking what constitutes the misfortune of a country, if his own was
unfortunate. He said: “The Russian is unfortunate for lack of education; he does cultivate his land well for that very
lack of education.” We talked about the socialism of Leo Tolstoy. I asked him what end he pursues and he said to
me that it seems that he oscillates, that he is a man of vast talent but he has no direction as yet. Speaking about
the difference in the character of the Europeans in the colonies and those in Europe, he said to me: Of course, for
they (Europeans in the colonies) think only of filling their pockets.” He said that socialism has ideas but the others
none. I told him that I would prefer to attack the defects of a government to those of a race.”
10
It must be noted that to be socialist after the First International necessary means to be a Marxist.
11
If this the case therefore Ambeth Ocampo’s categorical statement that if Rizal read Marx , we would have
something new to talk about” and therefore it should be initiated .
12
This research tried to focus on Rizal’s El Filibusterismo and not on his other writings such as diaries,
correspondence and essays for it is considered as the matured work of Rizal. But it does not mean that he tried to
neglect those. Some of these will be considered by the researcher.
 Marxism is a whole worldview that refers to the theoretical view of Communism, which
is found in the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx preferred to classify his philosophy as a
science, a practical method of social and historical analysis in the light of human reason rather
than as a philosophy itself because he was convinced that every speculative philosophy has no
practical value for: “The Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it.” (Marx, 1972, 108) Marxism is also known as Historical and
Dialectical Materialism because like any materialistic view, it affirms that the only objective
reality is matter. “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proven not by
a few juggled phrases, but by long and wearisome development of philosophy and natural
science.” (Engels, 1935, 65-66)

However, it regards matter as something which possesses inherent motion. Dialectical

materialism follows the dialectics of Hegel but it regards matter as the only objective reality.
According to Marx, like the dialectics of Hegel, matter undergoes a gradual development
because it possesses inherent motion. It was for this reason that Marx merged materialism with
the dialectical process of Hegel. With this, Marx (1930, 878) asserted

“My own dialectical method is not only fundamentally different from the Hegelian Dialectical
method, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the thought process is the creator of the real; and
for him the real is only the outward manifestation of the idea. In my view, on the other hand,
the ideal is nothing other than the material when it has been transposed and translated inside
the human head.”

Hegelian dialectics explains that it undergoes three stages: the thesis, antithesis and
synthesis. The thesis is the original idea that contains inherent contradiction. Antithesis is the
negation of the thesis. Synthesis is the negation of the antithesis and represents the unity of
the content of truth which was contained in both thesis and antithesis. The idea that shaped
Marx’s mind for his exposure to Hegelianism were the following: (1) all realities are composed
of opposites; (2) the movement of all realities is vertically advancing while the source of motion
is intrinsic; (3) progress is realized through the struggle of the opposites. From these principles,
Marx derived the three fundamental laws of dialectical materialism. The first is the law of
opposites.

According to Marx, it is the source of intrinsic movement in matter. The contradiction of

the two antagonistic elements exists in unity in matter. The second is the law of transition. It is
the process of evolution through which matter undergoes, which is caused by antagonism. The
third is the law of the negation of the negation which is the negation of the second position. It
is called the negation of the negation for while the second negated the first, it has turn been
negated by the third. According to Karl Marx, in applying the dialectical laws to the history of
society, one should make a distinction between the infrastructure and superstructure
(emphasis mine). He illustrated in his preface in the critique of Political Economy (1859) that
society is composed of the infrastructure and superstructure. The former refers to the
economic base that has two general components. The first is the means of production, which
refers to all the material and artificial instruments, including man’s labor, used for human
productive activity. The second is the relation of production. It is the social mechanism that
determines the nature of production, namely, what to produce and how to produce and for
whom to produce. The latter refers to the ideological component of the state such as
philosophy, literature, politics and etc. Engels (1935, 131) says

“The materialistic conception of the history starts from the

proposition that the production of the means of support of human
life – and next to production, the exchange of this produced – is the
basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in
history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided
into classes or orders is independent upon what is produced, how it
is produced and hoe the products are exchanged.”

In the beginning, the relations of production made by man are in harmony with the
prevailing stage of development, but time will come that it will have a conflict with the relations
of production, the old economic structure will collapse through social revolution. In order to
understand further the Marxism, it will be better to look at its basic tenets by looking at its 1)
Philosophy of History, 2) Theory of Class, 3) Role of State in the Society, 4) Human Nature, 5)
Critique of Religion and 6) Critique of Religion.

` Philosophy of History. Karl Marx’s conception of history is outlined in his two works
namely the Poverty of Philosophy, a polemic against Proudhon; and the Communist Manifesto,
a pamphlet jointly written with Engels. Karl Marx offered a radical view of the philosophy of
history for he regarded history as an activity of man in pursuit of his ends and not concerned
with every event that has ever happened, such as the coming of the planets, the eruption of the
volcanoes, or the occurrence of earthquakes.The Marxist theory of history is based on the
proposition that man’s basic reason for acting is to satisfy his material needs because human
needs are insatiable; man’s desires everything he produces. Mostly likely, man acts, consciously
and unconsciously, with economic motives. His political motives, religion, moral values,
philosophy etc, are determined by his economic mode of production, which is the primum
agens or the ultimate determining element. It is for this reason that the history of man is a
never-ending process of development. Accordingly, Marx thinks that all societies pass through
the same series of stages in order to arrive at a common end, which is a classless and stateless
society. (Faddin, 1939) According to Karl Marx, there are five epochs of history: Primitive
Communism, Slavery, Feudalism, Capitalism and Communism.

Primitve Communism “refers to the collective right to the basic resources, the absence
of hereditary status or the authoritarian relationship that preceded exploitation and economic
stratification in human history” (Bottomore, 1983, 364). This stage “corresponds to the
underdeveloped stage of production, at which people lives by hunting, fishing, by rearing of
beasts or in the highest stage of agriculture.” (Marx, German Ideology, n. p?) At this stage, since
the social structure is limited to an extension of family; patriarchal family chieftains below them
the members of the tribe. The means of production were still tribal and consequently the tools
or materials for production were owned collectively. The division of labor was still elementary
and was confined to a further extension of the natural division of labor existing in the family are
organized by means of production. Due to the underdeveloped means of production, there was
no realization in terms of human production. It was hindered by the forces of nature and lack of
instruments and tools. “Man is still connected by an umbilical cord to nature and to tribal
community.” (Marx, German Ideology, n. p?) Since human society at this stage was bound by
blood relationship, there was no competition among the kin but rather there was cooperation
in consistent labor for the sake of everyday survival.

After primitive communism, ancient slavery a new of production came into existence.
This stage was marked by the division of society into basic antagonistic classes – the class of
slave master which owned the means of production and the slave class which is the speaking
tool and source of labor to maintain society and till confers of the master. The emergence of
this stage was characterized by the appearance of the family and private ownership. At this
stage, with the introduction of family rule and monogamy, the family began to become an
organization. Due to man’s invention of different tools and instruments, he was able to produce
more than what he actually needed and the excess thus became his private wealth which they
soon lent to others who have less. In order to pay, these debtors became slaves to the one
whom they owed. War can be considered another cause if slaver. Wars have been a part of
man’s history and captives of war became the slaves of the victor, thus providing the latter with
the means to meet the increasing demand for food by an increasing population.

After this stage, a new economic mode of production emerged in order to replace the
slavery system, which had, became too limited form of production. This stage was
characterized due by: (1) the need for protection against the robbers; (2) the need for
protection against the exploitation of the merchants; (3) the monopoly due to the rising
competition of the escaped serfs swarming into the rising towns and (3) continuous presence of
wars and feuds. “This feudal system of land ownership had its counterpart in the towns in the
shape of corporative property, the feudal organization of trades. …The necessity for the
association against the organized robber’s nobility, the need for the communal covered
markets in an age when the industrialist was at same time a merchant, the growing competition
of the escaped serfs swarming into the rising towns.” (Marx, GI, n.p?) At this stage, the serfs
replaced the existing mode of production and became the primary economic agents. Unlike the
slavery system, the serfs did not receive any payment; rather they gave tribute to their master.
The serfs were chained to till the land. In order to answer the increasing population, new
sources of wealth were discovered, new territories conquered and the industry and commerce
developed. Production became available not only for the internal consumption but also for
exchange, new machines to speed up production were invented, and class division developed.
Little by little, because the barter system was widely practiced, the serfs were forced to “…
abandon their self-sufficient production in the favor of more marketable production.” (Tablan,
1990, 59) They migrated to the cities and became craftsmen. In order to regularize their
manner of production and protect themselves from the abuses of the merchants and country
lord, they formed closed guilds and organizations. However, the industrial production which is
run by these guilds soon no longer sufficed the increasing demands of new markets. “The guild
was pushed on the increasing was pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class,
divisions of labor between different corporate guilds vanished in the face of the division of
labor in each single workshop. Thus, the old system collapsed and a new one came into being.

At this stage, the relation of production is focused on the antagonistic classes: the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The former oppressed the wage labor by appropriating the
surplus goods that are being produced by the latter. At this stage, the forces of production in
this specific economic formation are claimed as the powerful forces such as factories and the
machineries. Due to the rapid changes and society’s championing of the policy of economic
right of the enterprise within the society, the bourgeoisie have to maintain their power so as to
reap the profits by the exploiting the proletariat. Thus, in this stage all the benefits and social
wealth goes to the hands of the bourgeoisie. For this reason, the proletariat suffers whereas
the capitalist enjoys the fruits of the workers’ labor.

After capitalism, there will be having the realization of freedom and equality of the
proletariat. Accordingly, at this stage there will be having a classless society and thus it will
result in the development progressive forces of production. The society as a whole, will own the
means of production because all the private property will be considered as belonging to the
people. Furthermore, at this stage there will having a harmony between the means of
production and the relation of production that will result to the administrative production. The
rule of the state will not be an organ for oppression for there will be abolition of the state.
Thus, “cultural life, freed from serving a ruling, will be flourish (sic) in the interest of the
society.” (Bottomore, 1983, 108)

Theory of Class. The theory of class is central importance in the Marxist social theory. It
was Marx’ starting point for his whole theory, hence, the famous opening line of the
Communist Manifesto: “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class
struggle”. (Marx, Communist Manifesto, n. p?) Accordingly, the term class signifies a group of
person with a common economic relationship as to bring other groups having different
economic relationship to these means. Furthermore, Marx added that if we going to analyze
class historically the existence of class differentiation emerged due to the appearance of the
prevailing mode of production. Some men own the means of production, whereas the others
do not. The ones who owned the means of production are in the position of powers – exploiting
class, where as the one who does not have is the exploited class. In so doing, there are two
classes in every existing society: the exploiting class and the exploited class. The former is that
which owns the means of production and consequently, is in hold of power. The members of
his class, do not labor, but live a life of luxury. They do not own the laborers, yet he has power
to dictate the hours which the laborers shall work. The latter class does not own the means of
production. They are the one who constitute the major portion of society but are in the position
of servitude with respect to the exploiting class. (Faddin, 1939)

Role of State in the Society. Accordingly, the state is the first ideological element created by the
mode of production in the social structure. It is for this reason that each type of economic production,
there is always a distinctive type of state and the first effect of any change in a mode of production
results in the creation of the new type of state. “The state presents itself to us the first ideological power
over mankind. Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its general interest against
internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power”(Engels, 1934, 64). According to Marx, in
order to understand the nature and purpose of the state, one must first discover the origin of private
property. He explains that private property is the product of a long process in the evolution. He
maintains that in the earliest primitive communism people had a common ownership. Due to the
accumulation of private property ownership, man’s invention of different tools emerged in order to
produce more than what he needed and the excess became the private wealth that they later lent to
others who had less. This economic mode of production created a definite property relation, which soon
led to the creation of classes – the haves and the have-nots (Faddin, 1939). Now, as private ownership
created classes so did the classes created antagonism. Thus, class struggle came into existence. When
the exploitation of the higher class has reached its highest peak, it becomes necessary for the ruling
class to call into being an organ of power whose purpose is to maintain the exploiting class in his
position. The state, then, became the organ of power which the exploiting class used when it could no
longer maintain the exploited class in a position of subservience without the use of force.

“The state…. an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference

from without with the existing conditions of production, and therefore,
especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the
condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production.”
(Engels, 1934, 69)

Human Nature. Karl Marx offered a radical view of human nature. He affirmed Darwin’s theory
that man by nature is an animal, which undergoes evolution over the course of time. He added that
before society existed, there is a prior existence of the pre-societal man. According to him, during this
time, man was not yet an actual man but an animal. “Man as he sprang originality from nature was only
a mere creature of nature and not man.” (Marx, German Ideology, n. p?) Human nature was thus, a
product of human history and not of anything else. Marx added that man acquired his rationality after
he acquired consciousness in the course of his evolution. In German Ideology, Marx explained that man
undergoes three moments of history in order to acquire his rationality. First is when they begin to
produce their means of subsistence. At this stage man learned to work from being a tree dweller, man
assumed a terrestrial residence. Second is the gradual realization that he needs to develop another
means of production to fulfill other needs. At this time stage, man learned to collaborate with other
men in order to satisfy his growing needs. As a consequence, the barbaric condition if man becomes an
organized society. And lastly, the realization that man needs to create his likeness in the personification
of his work.

Critique of Religion. Marxism remains loyal to its basic principles and methods in presenting its
critique of Religion. Just as it did with other aspects of philosophy, it bases its view of religion upon
knowledge derived from the analysis of objective reality. Consequently, Marxist Philosophy of religion
can only be attained as a product of searching investigation into the role has played throughout the
history of human civilization. In short, to know the origin of religion is to look back at history. According
to Karl Marx, while Religion was not derived from the economic basis, this does not mean that it has
conflict with the basic principles of economic determinism. It just so happened that religion existed prior
to the development of the system of private ownership and consequently prior to economic
determinism. Engels said that religion has it remote origins in the primitive communism and has passed
through evolution. Religion began not as religious desire for consolation but rather because of the
ignorance of man. The idea of religion developed from the personification of natural force. Since his
sustenance was provided by nature, man during the primitive communism sought to control the forces
of nature by offering and making sacrifices. There were times, however when nature was destructive.
Man began to regard such phenomena as thunders and lightning as being the wick of supernatural
creatures. Furthermore, intellectual development of religion brought the idea of monotheistic religion.
Now, as religion evolved so did the economic (which is identified with the emergence of private
property) developed. At this stage, man found and discovered that while he was no longer victims of the
uncontrollable forces of nature, he was now a victim of unbridled economic forces, which invariably
deprived him of the very necessities of life.

Due to emergence of private property, the current mode of production changed as did the
whole social structure. Consequently, exploitation emerged. Exploitation resulting from private
ownership necessitated the recreation of the entire social structure including religion. The function of
religion now no longer dealt with the forces of nature, but rather was used in order to exploit the lower
class of society. Accordingly, the nature and purpose of religion can be summed up in a phrase: “Religion
is the opium of the people.” To understand the meaning of this phrase, it is necessary to consider the
effects of opium. Opium assuages pain, allays irritation and intoxicates the mind. Thus, it has a seductive
effect upon man. By likening religion to opium Marx wanted to emphasize that the nature and purpose
of religion is to ease the physical and mental pain suffering of this life by promising greater happiness in
a future state of existence. Marx claimed that religion helps to soothe the irritation, which naturally
exists between the opposing classes of the society (Faddin, 1939). According to Marx, “Religion is the
sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of the spiritless
conditions. It is the opium of the people.” (Marx, 1926, 16)

Theory of Revolution. In the earlier part of this work, it was cited that society is composed of
two elements: the infrastructure and superstructure. The former is composed of the means of
production and relation of production. According to Marx, in the beginning the relation of production
made by man was in harmony with the prevailing stage of development, but time will come that it will
have a conflict with the relation of production, the old economic structure will collapse through social
revolution. “At a certain stage development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict
with the existing relations of production or this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with
the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of
development of the productive forces, these relations turn to their fetters. Then begin the era of social
revolution.” (Marx, 1975, 325) Due to the continuous antagonism between the means of production and
relation of production, it will result to the inevitable revolution. According to Marx, revolution has to be
accomplished by the working class. They are the universal class who endured universal sufferings and
extreme degree of dehumanization. For this reason, they should not hesitate to stage revolution for it is
a revolution that is destined to succeed. Marx said “it goes without saying that in the bloody conflict to
come, as in others, it will be the workers with their courage, resolution, and self-sacrifice, who will be
chiefly responsible for achieving victory.” But it must be noted that revolution need not to be violent for
according to Marx (Marx, 1973, 377) “…we do not deny that there are countries such as America,
England or if I was familiar with its institutions, I might include Holland, where the workers may attain
their goal by peaceful means.

In this vein, one could depart that from saying that violence becomes a necessity only when the
proletariat is “violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been
working toward a revolution with all their strength.” (Marx and Engels, 1970, 355)

LITERARY ANALYSIS OF EL FILIBUSTERISMO. El Filibusterismo is a novel with a weak plot that is

developed around the figure of Simoun, who is the former Crisostomo Ibarra in the Noli me Tangere. He
came back to his country for revenge after thirteen years of wandering in Europe. He had taken part in
the war in Cuba where he met a Spanish-General, whose goodwill he captured with the aid of money.
Later on, they became close friend because of certain crimes whose secrets were known to him. For this
reason, he was able to secure his appointment and once in the Philippines he made use of him as a blind
instrument, and pushing him to commit all kinds of injustices, taking advantage of his inextinguishable
lust for gold. What makes the El Flibusterismo weak in plot is the fact that it is a socio-political treatise
written in the skeleton of a novel. It contains different meditations of the author concerning Philippine
Society during his time. To be considered, a substantial novel El Flibusterismo needs to be organized. As
it is, the plot has become secondary to Rizal’s critique of late 19th century Philippine. Many chapters
were probably not even essential to the story. Nonetheless, Rizal succeeded in making his plot
interesting enough without distorting the reality of life in the Philippine and brought it to the climax in
tragic manner, holding its readers in suspense and moving them (Retana, 1991).

It is believed that El Filibusterismo is a sequel or a continuation of the Noli Me Tangere. It is true

but only in its plot and not in its substantive ideas. According to Retana, the substantive ideas of the Noli
Me Tangere changed as did its character and purpose in the El Filibusterismo. He added that the
Cristomo Ibarra of the Noli Me Tangere and the Simoun of the El Filibusterismo differ in the way they
think. There is a great transition in the ideas of the author, which he transmitted to his characters. For
instance:

“Crisostomo Ibarra confides, waits and loves whereas Simoun becomes

undeceived, skeptical and hates; Ibarra asks for reforms, appeals to the sense of
justice and to the goodness of the government whereas Simoun does not ask, he
 brutalizes, corrupts, incites to violence, destroys and commits suicide.” (Palma,
1991, 234)

In a short letter written by Rizal 1887 to his Austrian friend, Ferdinand Blumentritt, he provided
some important caveats in understanding the title of his second novel. According to him, the term
Filibusterismo in the Philippines is very profound and borad. It was a word whose definition underwent
changes as time went on. He explained that etymologically, it came either from the French word
filibuster or from the Dutch flieboot, which means ‘flyboat’. It originated in the seventh century in the
Carribean where it was used to designate pirates, who used small boats, which they called filibuster or
flieboot. As time changed the meaning of the word also changed. During the time of Rizal, Filibusterismo
in Europe was understood as the idea of breaking away of the colony from its Mother Country. On the
other hand, Filibustero referred to the person who has this idea. In the Philippines however, the term
had a different meaning. According to him, Filibustero were those who: did not raise their hats to
Spaniards; only greeted a Friar instead of kissing his hand or his habit; subscribed to a periodical from
Spain or another European country; studied in Europe; and read books other than the bible, the lives of
the saints, miracle stories, and biographies. In short, Filibustero were those who in modern civilized
countries and under normal condition were considered good citizens, lovers of progress and
enlightenment. Rizal used El Flibusterismo as the title to his novel for three reasons. First, he dedicated
it to the Gomburza whom the Spaniards and Friars had first accused of filibusterism. Second, the major
character of the novel, Simoun, possessed the characteristics of the true filibuster. Lastly, Rizal wanted
to awaken the Filipinos and enlighten them on the notion of Filibusterism in the Philippines. (Sichrovsky,
1987)

In order to understand the novel further, it will be better for us to look into its selected
characters and selected chapters. By its characters, the researcher considered Simoun,
Cabesang Tales, Padre Florentino and Juli whereas on the chapters 1, 2, 11, and 33 on the
selected chapters.

Characters. Simoun was no other than Crisostomo Ibarra of Rizal’s first novel – the Noli Me
Tangere, who was a victim of Spanish injustice and abuses. To escape persecution, he left the Philippines
and wandered from one country to another in Europe, and then moved to Cuba where he eventually
became rich and befriended many Spanish officials. After thirteen years of wandering, returned to the
Philippines assuming the name of Simoun. Pretending to be loyal to Spain, he had actually come back in
order to instigate a revolution against the Spaniards and to rescue his beloved, Maria Clara from the
nunnery of Santa Clara. He became the close friend of Spanish Governor-General and because of this he
was called the ‘brown general’. In order to attain his goals, he encouraged corruption to hasten the
moral degradation of the country so that people in their discouragement would launch a revolution with
the help of his wealth and riches. After learning of Maria Clara’s death, Simoun smuggled arms into the
country with the help of Chinese named Quiroga. He made a plan to overthrow the government. On the
wedding of Paulita and Juanito, he gave a beautiful lamp as a gift. The lamp, however, contained
nitroglycerine. It was supposed to explode, thereby killing all the guests in the house, including the
friars, Spanish officials and governor-general. However, Basilio, Simoun’s confidant, the only one who
knew of the latter’s plans, revealed them to Isagani. Basilio’s revelation resulted in the failure of
Simoun’s plans because of Isagani throw the lamp into the river where it exploded. Simoun escaped
having wounds, however he found refuge in the house of Padre Florentino and there committed suicide.
(Radaic, 1999 and Rivera, 1997)
Cabesang Tales. Although Simon was the main character of the novel, Cabesang Tales on the
other hand was the nucleus of the novel. He was the son of Tandang Selo. Having a little amount of
money, he bought two carabaos and aided by his father, his wife, and their three children, worked on
cultivating a piece of land which he believed belonged to no one. While working on the land, his wife
and his daughter fell sick and died. This was a consequence of the turning over of the soil plagued with
various organisms, but it was attributed to the vengeance of the spirits of the forests. The surviving
members resigned themselves and continued with their labours, confident that the spirits had been
appeased. When time came, the Dominicans claimed the ownership of the land. Tales was asked to pay
an annual tax in order for him to be allowed to stay and continue tilling the land. Thinking this is lawful
and not wanting to get himself into the scrap with the friars, he paid rent. Since harvest was good and
sold for a price, Tales dreamed of building a wooden house. Another year passed and the friars raised
rental to fifty pesos. Again Tales gave in. Another year went by and he and his family finally able to
realize their dream to live in a wooden house. After realizing that dream, he thought of sending his two
children to school. But this dream appeared destined not to be realized. Tales was made Cabesa de
Barangay (head of the village and tax collector). Thereafter he realized that many farmers were too poor
to pay their taxes and so he added money from his own pocket to complete the total tax quota. The
friars, however increased the rent on the land. Tales became defiant and refused to pay and swore that
he would not give up the land. He was sued and because he was an Indio, the court sided with the
Dominicans. To make matter worse, he fell into the hands of the tulisanes because he they thought that
he could pay the ransom for his freedom. Trouble fell on his family. His son joined the guardia civil and
his daughter worked as a maid in order to have money to pay the ransom. When he was freed by the
tulisanes, he killed the people whom he believed to be the cause of his suffering, and later on joined to
tulisanes. (Rivera, 1997)

Padre Florentino. He was a wise old priest who prefers to live in the family-state out of fear that
the rich revenue of his parish would make him the focus of attention after the execution of the
GOMBURZA. He was born to a wealthy family and became priest at the insistence of his mother. During
the celebration of his first mass, he was beset by a spiritual crisis when he learned that the woman to
whom he had been engaged had married a worthless fellow in despair. To forget his troubles he
dedicated himself wholeheartedly to his priestly work and retired soon after the execution of the three
priests. Padre Florentino was first seen in the El Flibusterismo seated among the ordinary passengers in
the lower deck. Rizal did this in order to show that the native priest was the contrast of the friars, that
he was a Filipino secular priest who was a man of dignity and integrity. In the final chapter of the El
Filibusterismo, he became the refuge of Simoun. Before drinking the poison Simoun called him and
made a confession about his true identity. The priest assured Simoun of God’s forgiveness. Thereafter
they began to have lengthy dialogue about revolution. Simoun asked him “Is it the will of God that the
people should live in a miserable condition?” The pries appealed to God’s providence and replied that
God does not abandon those who entrust themselves to him “…Hindi, ang Diyos ay katarungan, hindi
Niya mapapabayaan ang kaniyang mithi, ang mithi ng kalayaan na kapag wala ay walang maaring
katarungan.” (Rizal, 1999, 268) When Simoun asked why God had forsaken him. Padre Florentino replied
that Simoun had chosen evil. According to the priest, true freedom could be achieved only through
moral and noble means.
 “…Kung lalaya sa hinaharap ang ating bayan, hindi ito dahil sa bisyo at krimen,
sa pagsira sa kaniyang mga anak, sa paglinlang sa ilan, sa pagbili sa iba. Hindi.
Ang katubusan ay nangangailangan ng kabutihan, kabutihan, pagtitiis at
pagtitiis, pag-ibig” (Rizal, 1999, 268).

Simoun wondered: why God had inflicted sufferings on the just and the innocent, adding that
he, Simoun, should be struck down alone. Padre Florentino replied that there was such a thing as
redemptive suffering. The task therefore was to: “magtiis at gumawa. (Rizal, 1999, 299) What prompted
him to tell this is because according to him Filipino’s are devoid of sense of nationalism, they should
need to be educated first for social revolution is an inevitable. In this sense, if revolution will happen
through bloody one, he said that “the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow.” (Rizal, 1999)

Juli. She was the daughter of Cabesang Tales. When her father fell in the hand of the tulisanes,
she acceded to Hermana Penchang;s suggestion that she (Penchang) would give Juli the much needed
money which the latter still needed to pay for the ransom on the condition that Juli would stay with her
as a servant. The night before going to Herman Penchang, Juli yielded to vain fancies such as: “… baka
may mangyari himala. Maaring mkatagpo siya ng dalawang daa’t limampung piso sa ilalim ng imahen ng
Mahal na Birhen.. Maaring hindi sumikat ang araw at hindi na dumating pa ang bukas, at manalo ang
usapin. Makababalik ang kanyang ama at darating si Basilio. Maaring makatagpo siya ng isang supot ng
ginot sa kanilang bakuran…” (Rizal, 1999, 32) Accordingly, she was the prettiest bell in the village,
because of this her folks had a high hopes for her, but Padre Camorra did everything in order that she
may fell in his hands. When Basilio, her boyfriend, was imprisoned she taught that it was due to her and
her family. Thus, she decided to enter in a convent where she leaped from the window and died
escaping from impending danger. (Rivera, 1997)

Selected Chapters. Chapter 1 - The author began his chapter with the quotation “Sic itur ad
astra” which means “this is the way to the stars”. He used this Latin dictum because he wanted to show
the condition of the Philippine society during his time. In this chapter, the author used different
analogies like of Bapor Tabu as the Philippine society, the boats’s captain as the governor-general, and
two kinds of passengers as the two classes of society existing during his time. 13 At the beginning of this
chapter, the author described the Philippine society by using the image of Bapor Tabu: “isang bapor na
hindi naman ganap na bapor; isang organismong hindi nagbabago; hindi buo ngunit hindi
mapasusubalian; at kapag nagnais magpakitang umuunlad, buong kasiyahan nang ipinagmamalaki ang
isang pahid ng pintura.” (Rizal, 1999, 1) The Philippine in Rizal’s time was thus, a country which was not
a country, changeless, defective but an indisputable fact. The author also added that Philippine society
during that time was run by the Friars and illustrious personages. However, the analogy that does not
stop there; the author applied it even in the distribution of the passengers and the skipper of the ship.
13
This interpretation is not only based on the researcher’s understanding. It is based on the endnote of the original
text of El Filibusterisomo which says that with irony, Rizal here described the Bapor Tabu at the same time he also
compared it with the condition of the country. Thus, in the next paragraph one may read the rest of the
description and see the true intention of the author. (Originally in Spanish translated through Google translate:
Ironnicamente, acqui Rizal describe el Vapor Tabu, al mismo tiempo que le compara con las condiciones del pais.
Lease en loss siguintes parrafos el resto de la descripcion y se vera la verdara intencion de autor.) Please refer on El
Filibusterismo: Por Jose Rizal (Manila: Instituto Historico Nacional, 1996) portada 2.
“..Nakadungaw sa pang-ibabang kubyerta, ang mga kayumangging mukha at ulong maiitim, mga tipong
Indio, Tsino at mestiso, nakasiksik sa piling mga kalakal at baul. Sa pang-itaas na kubyerta, sa lilim ng
toldang nagtatanggol sa kanila sa init ng araw, nakalikomo sa mga maginhawang silyon ang ilang
pasaherong nakadamit Europeo, humihitit ng tabako, nagniniloay sa tanawin at sa malas, hindi pansin
ang mga pagsusumisikap ng kapitan at mga marino upang maiwasan ang mga balakid sa ilog.” (Rizal,
1999, 2)

Here, one might say that during that time, there were two existing classes of society, namely,
the upper class and the lower class. The former were the Indios, and the Chinese, whereas the latter
were the Friars, Spaniards and the peninsulares. Furthermore, according to the author the skipper of the
ship was like an old soldier who, after having won many battles, had became in his old age tutor to a
willful, disobedient, and lazy child. He says: “Dahil dito, kailangan baway saglit ng buithing ginoo na
huminto, umatras, magmenor, iutos ngayon ang bapor at iutos pagkatapos ang estribor sa liamng
marino na may tangang mahahabang tikin upang tulungan pakaliwa o pakanan ang ouhit ng timon”
(Rizal, 1999, 2). This passage reveals the function of the governor-general in the Philippines. It shows
that because the state was in reality is run by the Friars and other illustrious personages, he had to stop,
go astern or half speed ahead in governing the state. Furthermore, this chapter also reveals the way the
luxurious life of the upper class. It shows that unlike the lower class who were suffering, the upper class
are described as sitting in comfortable chairs, protected by the awning from the sun and smoking huge
cigars.

Chapter 2. This chapter was entitled by the author as “Ibabang Kubyerta”. In this chapter, the
author wanted to show the conditions of the lower class who constituted the major portion of society
and were in the position of servitude. According to him (Rizal, 1999, 11): “Ibang tagpo ang nagaganap sa
ibabang kubyerta. Makikitang nakaupo ang kalakahang mayorya ng mga pasahero sa mga bangko at sa
maliliit na taburenteng kahoy, sa gitna ng mga maleta, kahon, bayong at tampipi, may dalawangg
hakbang ang layo sa makina, sa init ng mga kaldera at sa loob ng mga magkahalong amoy ng tao at
masangsang na amoy ng langis” (Rizal, 1999, 12). Those who belonged to this class were the Indios,
Chinese and the Filipino students. Furthermore, besides mentioning the different kinds of people
belonged to this class. One can see that the Indios were the docile for they did not complain or oppose
abuses and malpractices. In their sufferings, they just lowered their brow and indulged themselves in
self-pity. The Indio also became indolent because they preferred gambling to an honest day’s work
when they uprooted from farms to work in far places. Furthermore, they were entirely devoid of the
feeling of nationalism. The actions of the students on the lower deck, on the other hand, only shows
that they were not concerned with the problems and conditions of the Philippines. Despite this negative
attitude of the Indios, however, the author shows that there were still Filipinos like Isagani and Basilio
who were thinking about some of the pressing issues in the Philippines like establishment of the
Academy and the opium problem. The author also described the personalities of Isagani and Basilio in
this chapter. He showed how patriotic they were in their lengthy dialogue with Simoun and in the end
revealed their idealism by mentioning this poem (Rizal, 1999, 15):

Tubig kami, wika nino, apoy kayo14

14
According to commentators of Rizal, these symbolism means class struggle between the Indios and the
Spaniards. Please refer to the endnotes of El Filibusterismo translated by Almario.
 Masusunod, kung siya ninyong ibig!
Mamuhay tayong tipon-tipon
At huwag makita ng apoy na mag-away!
Ngunit pinag-isa ng maalam na agham
Sa init ng sinapupunan ng kaldera,
Walang poot, walang dahas,
Maging singaw tayo,
ang panlimang sangkap,
Kaunlaran, buhay, liwanag at pagkilos! (Rizal 1999, 15)

Chapter 11. In this chapter, the author emphasized on the luxurious that the upper class in the
way they spent their holiday despite the sufferings of the lower class. He also revealed the traits of the
Friars by showing that instead of living according to their vows of poverty, they led in a very comfortable
life, indulging in vices like gambling. In this chapter, one can see how Simoun challenged the Friars at the
gambling table by suggesting that instead of paying money if they lost they would subject themselves to
the following penalties: “…limang araw na karalitaan, pagpapakumbaba, pagiging masunurin.. kalinisan,
pagiging mapagbigay, atbp. Mkikita ninyong maliit lang ito, samantalang ako, mga brilyante ang ibibigay
ko.” (Rizal, 1999, 75)

In addition, the author revealed in Simoun’s remarks to the Spaniards that the ruling class were
the true bandits of the country. According to him, the trouble was not that there were bandits in the
mountains rather the trouble lay in the presence in the towns and cities of bandits like themselves. “Oo,
tulad ko, tulad natin, maging pranka tayo sa isa’t issa, wala isa mang Indio ditong makaririnig… Ang
masama’y mga hindi hayag na tulisan tayong lahat. Kapag lumitaw ito at kapag nagpunta tayo para
tumira sa mga gubat iyon ang araw ng kaligtasan ng bansa, iyon ang araw na isisilang ang bagong lipuna
na mag-isang isasaayos ang sarili.” (Rizal, 1999, 76)

This chapter shows how the ruling class regarded those they exploited and oppressed. The
author shows how the petitions on the establishment of the Spanish Academy were decided upon.
According to them: “…Hindi dapat matuto, dahil pagkatapos makikipagtalo sila sa atin. At hindi dapat
makipagtalo ang mga Indio. Dapat lang silang sumunod at magbayad… hindi sila dapat makialam sa
interpretasyon ng kung ano ang sinasabi ng mga batas at mga libro. Matitigas ang ulo nila… Sa sandaling
matuto sila ng Kastila, magiging kaaway sila ng Diyos at ng Espanya…” (Rizal, 1999, 76)

Chapter 33. In this chapter, the author voiced the need for re-invirogating Philippine society
through revolution. Basilio was challenged by Simon about his plan of revolution. According to their
lengthy dialogue: “You in the suburds…” said Simon. “…will be ready to our aid and you will put the
sword not only to the counter revolutionists but also every man who refuses to take up arms and join
us!” “All?”stammered Basilio in a choked voice.”All!” Simon replied. “All those whom who find without
courage, without energy… It is necessary to renew the race. Cowardly fathers breed slavish son. And it
would not be worth the pair to destroy and then to rebuild with rotten materials!”

When Simon noticed Basilio trembling, he asked: “What? You shudder? You tremble? You fear
to scatter death”? He added: “What is death? What does a hecatomb of twenty thousand wretches
signify?” He answered: “…Twenty thousand miseries less, and millions of wretches saved from birth!” He
then explained to Basilio the hard facts of tyranny:

“…Hindi’t ang batas sa paglalaban na kailangang sumuko ang mahina upang

huwag manatili ang masamang lahi at upang hindi umurong ang pagsulong?
Iwaksi, samakatwid, ang mga pagkabahalang pambabae! Pabayaang matupad ang
mga batas na walang hanggan, tulungan natin ito. Sapagkat higit na mabunga ang
lupa kapag lalong napapatabaan ng dugo at higit tumatatag ang mga trono
kapaglalong nasesementuhan ng mga krimen at bangkay, alisin ang pag
aalinlangan.” (Rizal, 1999, 263)

Through these dialogue, one would depart from Rizal is suggesting that revolution will end the
tyrannical rule and the misery of many setting up a new group of young active and vigorous leaders to
work out the new destiny of society. The enigmatic Simon asked Basilio for the second time: “Kailangan
lipunin ang masama, puksain ang dragon upang ipaligo ang dugo sa bagong bayan atmaging malusog sila
at hindi magagapi… Ano ba ang kirot ng kamatayan? Ang naramdaman sa isang saglit,nakalilito marahil,
kasiya-siya marahil na tulad ng agaw tulog? …Ano ba ang pagdurusa, mga damong payat upang taniman
ng ibang halamang malulusog? Tatwagin ba itong pagwawasak? Tatawagin ko itong paglikha, paggawa,
paglinang pagkabuhay…” (Rizal, 1999, 263) In this vein, all ideas therefore on revolution are anchored on
the proposition that all changes must be effected in the political, economic, religious, social, and
intelliectual spheres is inferred from the conversation. Many political revolutions achieved their goals
through violence with great loses of human life and destruction of property. 15

Analysis in the light of Marxism

After considering the basic tenets of Marxism and the literary analysis of the El Filibusterismo,
we are now in the position to look and analyze it the second novel of Rizal in the light of Marxism. This
can be done by looking at the basic tenets of Marxism as mentioned above.

Philosophy of History. According to Marx, society undergoes the five epochs of history so as to
achieve the classless society. This contention can be seen in the Elf Filibusterismo particularly in the
story of Cabesang Tales.16 In the story, Tales and Tandang Selo’s living in the forest, reflects the primitive
communism. At this stage we can see that society is formed by blood relationship. There was no private
property and the only source of production is the land. Social organization was based on cooperation
and not on competition. All the members of the family of Tandang Selo worked. Thus, labor distribution
was organized by means of kinship relation. When the wife and the child of Tales died, he accepted it
because it he believed it to be the will of God. Tales’ cultivation of peace of land signifies the second
stage of society- slavery. At this stage, the history is characterized by the appearance of the family,
15
But It must be noted that social revolution, according to Rizal can be peaceful or violent “…this transformation
has to e violent and fatal if it should originate from the masses; peaceful and rich in result if from the upper class.
Please refer to Rizal on his Political and Historical Writings, 162
16
Please refer also to Fernandez. According to her “Alam ng tekstong nauukol kay Tales ang Marksistang konsepto
tungkol sa historical development at ang pagbabahagi ng kasaysayan sa mga ganitong “stages of development:
primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism at communism…” However, it must be noted that Fernandez
stopped in the Feudalist stage and did not anymore discussed and explained capitalism and communism.
private property and slavery. In the story, we can see that the moment Tales occupied a piece of land
and cultivated it, the concept of private property appeared. He used the member of his family as labor
power. He also used different means of production, like the used of carabaos. And this enabled him to
produce more than what he needed. Thus, the excess became his private wealth. Through this excess of
production, Tales thought of sending his children to school. He also began lending some of his excess
product to others who had less. In turn, in order to pay their debt, they became slaves of Tales. The
progress of Cabesang Tales has been recognized in society. For this reason, he became the Cabesa de
Barangay. At this point, there is a change in the mode of production. Although this was not mention in
the text, the Philippines was opened to the world market. For this reason, land became the most
important means of production. This stage became the Feudal stage. In this stage, because of the new
economic mode of production, the friars, despite their vows of poverty, started to acquire land. They
started to grab the land of the Filipinos, including that of Cabesang Tales. After acquiring the land, they
asked the former owners to pay an annual tax in exchange for their stay on the land. This stage reflects
the Feudalism stage. At this point, the story of Tales ends. And one would notice that Rizal stopped at
feudalism. Although capitalism is not been manifested in the El Filibusterismo, it does not mean that
there is only three stages of history namely Primitive Communism, Slavery, and Feudalism. What made
Dr. Jose Rizal stopped in the feudalist stage is because the dominant mode of production in the
Philippine society during his time was Feudalism. However, capitalism is not been manifested in the El
Filibusterismo, out one could inferred that the Marxian Philosophy of History is really embodied in the
novel. It was manifested in the poem of Isagani:

“Tubig kami, wika nino, apoy kayo

Masusunod, kung siya ninyong ibig!
Mamuhay tayong tipon-tipon
At huwag makita ng apoy na mag-away!
Ngunit pinag-isa ng maalam na agham
Sa init ng sinapupunan ng kaldera,
Walang poot, walang dahas,
Maging singaw tayo, ang panlimang sangkap,
Kaunlaran, buhay, liwanag at pagkilos!” (Rizal 1999, 15)

From, this one could notice that Rizal mentioned the “Panlimang sangkap” wherein there is
“Kaunlaran, buhay, liwanag at pagkilos”. This panlimang sangkap signifies the fifth epoch of history
which is communism. At this stage there will be having a classless society- “mamumuhay tayong tipon-
tipon”, no class struggle- “huwag makitang ang apoy na mag-aaway”. Thus, it will result to the
development, and progress- “kaunlaran, buahay, liwanag at pagkilos.

Human Nature. According to Marx, man undergoes three moments of history in order to
acquire his rationality. These three moments of history are seen in the El Filibusterismo, specifically in
the life of Cabesang Tales.17 First, Tales began to produce his family’s means of subsistence. At this stage
Tales worked hard in order to fulfill the primary needs of his family, like food, shelter and clothing.

17
According to Fernandez, 603 “Sa kwento ni Tales ay matatagpuan ang isang sekretong diskurso: Ang tao ay
nilikha para sa paggawa. Ang pangangailangan na magproduce at magreproduce ng buhay ay siyang tumutulak sa
tao upang maging rasyonal. Hindi likas sa kanya ang pagiging rasyonal.”
Second, after fulfilling the primary needs of the family, he came to realization that he needed to develop
another means of production in order to fulfill another need. At this stage, he realized the need to adapt
to modernized farming techniques to become prosperous. What he did was to buy two carabaos. In
addition, due to good harvest, Tales dream of building a wooden house and after fulfilling that dream he
discovered that he needed to educate his children. From the story of Tales, one can see that being
rational is not the nature of man. He can only attain this rationality by means of production. He
therefore needs to work for the attainment of his rationality.

Theory of Class. According to Marx, there are two existing classes in a society e.g. the slaves and
the freemen, the guildmasters and the journeymen, the feudals lords and the serfs, the bourgeoisies
and the proletariats, in short, the oppressors and the oppressed. This contention can be also seen in the
text and it is very obvious in Chapter I of the El Filibusterismo in the way Rizal portrayed the two kinds of
passengers on the Bapor Tabu. 18 “At, kung hindi pa lubos ang pagkakahawig sa barko ng Estado, tingnan
ang pagkakayos ng pasahero. Nakadungaw sa pang-ibabang kubyerta, ang mga kayumangging mukha at
ulong maiitim, mga tipong Indio, Tsino at mestiso, nakasiksik sa piling mga kalakal at baul. Sa pang-itaas
na kubyerta, sa lilim ng toldang nagtatanggol sa kanila sa init ng araw, nakalikomo sa mga maginhawang
silyon ang ilang pasaherong nakadamit Europeo, humihitit ng tabako, nagniniloay sa tanawin at sa
malas, hindi pansin ang mga pagsusumisikap ng kapitan at mga marino upang maiwasan ang mga
balakid sa ilog.” (Rizal, 1999, 2) In this vein, one could say that Dr. Jose Rizal’s view of society was
divided into two classes: the upper class and the lower class. The lower classes were the Indios, and the
Chinese. They constitute the major portion of the society but were in position of servitude with respect
to the exploiting class. Dr. Jose Rizal showed this in the chapter two of the El Filibusterismo. On the part
of the upper class, they (Friars and the Spaniards) were in hold of power in the state. “…Maari pa itong
ituring na barko ng Estado, ginagawa sa pangangasiwa ng mga Reberendo at Ilustrismo.” Rizal even
added the way on how they lived in luxurious life in the portrayal of the situation on the upper deck of
the Bapor Tabu. In addition, Dr. Jose Rizal did not only described or shower the two existing classes in
the society in his portrayal of the passengers in the Bapor Tabu. He also showed it in the poem of
Isagani- the “Tubig at Apoy”. From the tubig at apoy, one could depart on the difference between the
two that they are really opposite to each other. The Tubig symbolized the lower class whereas the ‘apoy’
symbolized the upper class.

Role of the State in the Society. According to Marx, the state is an organ of power, which the
ruling class uses so as to exploit the exploited class. This can be also seen in the text into three
perspectives. First, in Chapter 1 – Dr. Jose Rizal mentioned that Bapor Tabu which was the symbolism of
the Philippine society is ran under the supervision of the friars and illustrious personages. “…Maaari pa
itong ituring na barko ng Estado, ginagawa sa pangangasiwa ng mga Reberendo at Ilustrisimo.” (Rizal,
1999, 1) From this one could depart that saying that eventhough there is the state in the society, the
state during Rizal’s time was ran by the upper class of the society. The second point can be seen in the
chapter 11 of the El Filibusterismo. In this chapter, one could see how the ruling class spoke of the
oppressed class and how they used the state as an organ for oppressing the Indios by deciding not to
open a Spanish Academy because of the following reasons: “…Hindi dapat matuto, dahil pagkatapos
makikipagtalo sila sa atin. At hindi dapat makipagtalo ang mga Indio. Dapat lang silang sumunod at

18
It must be noted that in the Noli Me Tangere, there were three classes in the society. It was portrayed by Rizal in
their different location in the house of Kapitan Tiago.
magbayad… hindi sila dapat makialam sa interpretasyon ng kung ano ang sinasabi ng mga batas at mga
libro. Matitigas ang ulo nila… Sa sandaling matuto sila ng Kastila, magiging kaaway sila ng Diyos at ng
Espanya…” (Rizal, 1999, 76) This reflects that the upper class used the state as an organ of power whose
purpose is to maintain the exploiting class in position. Third, is with that of the role of the Governor-
General in the Philippine Society. Due to the fact that the society was run by the upper class, he had to
stop, go astern or half-speed in governing the state.

Critique of Religion. In the earlier part of this work, the researcher presented Marx’s idea that
religion started not as a religious desire but rather because of the ignorance of man. According to this
theory, religion resulted due to the personification of the forces of nature and as time passed by men
realized that they were no longer a victim of the uncontrollable forces of nature that the function of
religion developed into a means to exploit the lower class of society. It was, thus, that religion became
the opium of the people.

This contention of Marx can be also seen in the El Filibusterismo. The personification of forces of
nature can be seen in the attitude of Cabesang Tales when his elder daughter and wife died because of
the turning over of the soil plagued with various organisms. But Tales attributed this to the vengeance of
the spirits of the forest. Although it is not seen in the text that he made sacrifices and offerings so as to
appease the spirits, certainly he did this because he resigned and continued with his labors confidently
because they believed that the spirits have been appeased.

“Kaya hinawan at nilinis nila ang gubat sa may hangganan ng bayan at sa

paniniwala nila’y walang sinuman may-ari. Sa panahonng hinahawan at
pinatutuyo nila ang lupa, isaisang dinapuan ng lagnat ang buong mag-anak. Ang
ina at panganay na anak ay kapwa namatay… Likas na bunga iyon ng
pagbubungkal sa lupaing sagana sa iba’t ibang organismo, Ngunit ipinalagay nila
ang mga pangyayari na isang paghihiganti ng diwata ng gubat; at tumalaga sila at
nagpatuloy sa paggawa sa paniwalang napalubag na ito” (Rizal, 1999, 24)

As time went by, they realized that they were no longer victim of the forces of nature but rather
of victims of exploitation, when the Friars claimed ownership of the land. And since Tales did not want
to get himself into the scrap with the powerful Friars, he paid rent and followed the advised of his
father. “Magparaya! Higit na malaki ang magugugol mo sa santaoing pakikipag-usapin sa kaysa
makasampu ng hinihingi ng mga paring puti! Hmm! Mababayaran ka naman nila sa mga misa” (Rizal,
1999, 24-25). As regards religion as the opium of the people, this claim can be seen in the attitude of Juli
when she is about to work as a maid to Hermana Penchang. His attitude reflects the idea that religion
serve as to ease the physical and mental suffering of the present life by promising greater happiness in
the future.

Social Revolution. According to Karl Marx, social revolution is the transition of one epoch of
history to another. This transition is signified by the conflict between the means of production and the
relation of production that would result to the change of the whole social structure. This contention can
be seen in the text particularly in the words of Simoun during his dialogue with Basilio in the chapter 33
of the novel. In the dialogue, one would notice the need for re-invirogarating the Philippine society
through a social revolution. A revolution which all changes in political, economics, religious, social and
intellectual sphere of the Filipinos which will end setting the acts of tyrannical rule and the misery of
many setting up a new group of young, active and vigorous leaders to work out the new destiny of the
society.
“Ano ba ang kirot ng kamatayan? Ang naramdaman sa isang saglit , nakalilito marahil, kasiya- siya
marahil na tulad ng agaw tulog? … Ano ba ang mawawasak? Isang kasamaan, ang pagdurusa, mga
damong payat upang taniman ng ibang halamang malulusog? Tatawagin ba itong pagwawasak?
Tatawagin ko itong palikha, paggawa, paglinang, pagkabuhay…” (Rizal, 1999, 263)

According to Rizal, this changes or transformation has to be violent and fatal if it would originate
from the masses; peaceful and rich in results it from the upper classes. But it should be noted that Rizal
is not for armed revolution. It was manifested in his advice in the katipunan and the last chapter of the
El Filibusterismo. When Rizal was asked to give an advised regarding the forthcoming Philippine
revolution by Dr. Pio Valenzuela. Rizal told them that “ hindi pa hinog ang rebolusyon.” The implication
of this statement of Rizal is the inevitability of revolution because one could depart from saying that
Rizal stated this because he has seen that revolution will really happen and we should wait for the right
time for its ripeness. In the El Filibusterismo, Rizal showed that revolution will not succeed if it is done
from an evil means. According to him, the right thing to do is to “suffer and work.” This statement
reveals the connection to his advised to the Katipunan that they need to suffer and work because time
will come that there will be having a change in the whole social structure though social revolution. Rizal
is convinced that in order to have a social transformation the Filipinos should be first educated for they
are devoid of Nationalism. For, according to him, revolution will be fatal the slaves of today will be
sooner be the tyrants of tomorrow.