Rizal’s Socio, Political and Economic Thought:

Thought of Change

A term paper to be submitted in

partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the subject

Socio-Political and Economic Thought

Submitted By:

DIZON, KURT ZEUS L.

MA Political Science 1

Submitted To:

Mr. Ferdinand Lawan

Social Studies 518

April 2016

I. Introduction
 Rizal is one of the leaning and important figures in our Philippine history. He was indeed
recognizing as our national hero, a renowned propagandist, and a symbolism of Filipino nationalism. He was
a key member of the Filipino Propaganda Movement which is composed by intellect Filipinos that advocates
political reforms of the Philippine colony under Spanish rule. He wrote two important novels, the Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterisimo to open the eyes of the Filipino People to the grim truth of Spanish tyranny.
Due to his writings and the propaganda movement, he was executed by the Spanish government for the
conspiring of rebellion motivated in his writings. His death sparks the Philippine Revolution against Spain
and the quest of the Filipino people for self-determination.

II. Prelude and Objectives

His political thought was influence by such critical junctures in our history. The opening of Manila
to the world trade was one. With the wide acceptance of laissez-faire doctrines in the later part of the 18th
century, Spain relaxed its mercantilist policies[ CITATION Zai57 \l 13321 ]. This leads to opening and
admission of foreign firms and individuals aside from Spain to enter the Philippines. The opening of the Suez
Canal also made the travel between Philippines and Spain shorter. Exchange between trades of goods
expands and become faster, the exchange of ideas also spread. The influx of ideas due to the world trade and
the opening of the Suez Canal especially on political thought influence Filipinos who were exposed to the
academe. Spain experience ideals of Liberalism during the period of Enlightenment in Europe. Basically the
divine rights of kings were challenged. In 1868, a revolution overthrew the autocratic monarchy of Queen
Isabella II of Spain, which was replaced by a civil and liberal government with Republican principles led by
Francisco Serrano.

However the monarchy was restored at the 1874 restoration[ CITATION For06 \l 13321 ]. Here in the
Philippines, one major event is the 1872 Cavite Mutiny where military personnel rise up for their beliefs due
against tax or the polos y servicio (labor service) which has been deducted to their salaries. The mutiny was
crashed and later prosecuted to those who are in charge – basically the mutineers are either imprisoned or
executed. The mutiny was an instrument used by the Spanish colonial government and friars to accuse three
secular priests, Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora – the GOMBURZA and all were executed
through the garrote. One of the priests, Jose Burgos reputation caused him to be accused to the
mutiny[ CITATION For06 \l 13321 ]. Burgos had been recognized as a defender of the native clergy. His
arguments over the rights of native priests had prolonged to include questions of race and
nationalism[ CITATION Zai84 \l 13321 ].

The tragic event of the execution of the GOMBURZA is origin of the political awakening of young
intellects especially Rizal. The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 lead to the Propaganda Movement which aim for
reforms. Basically the reforms push that Philippines should be made a province of Spain, Philippines should
have a representative at the Spanish Cortes, Filipino priest instead of Spanish friars and rule of law. However
the colonial authorities did not favour these reforms[ CITATION Cra07 \l 13321 ]. With such reforms cannot
be achieved and the growing ideological differences among the members, the Propaganda movement soon
dissolve. But with the happenings especially to the political arena, Rizal was baffle to what prescription
should be done to the ill-sicken Philippines. This was reflected in his two novels, the Noli Me Tangere and
El Filibusterismo. Aside from illustrating the Philippines situation from Spanish rule, it also narrates and
proposes a two-pronged remedy or solution, that is, thru reform and revolution. This was his main political
thought, his objective for the Philippines – the politics of change, a thought of change. His literature would
be lead to the independence of the Philippines from Spanish colonial rule. His whole works would determine
his political thought yet there is still complexity whether he supports reforms or revolution. This now would
assess his political beliefs and to what certain degree is his position towards the political spectrum. His
political thought between reform and revolution will also determine his thought regarding the society and
economy.

III. Political thoughts: Reform or Revolution

His two novels basically reflect political ideas of reform and revolution – two political alternative
strategies. His objective focuses on the application between reform and revolution due to the on growing
crisis in the Philippines The novel’s main character and protagonist, Crisostomo Ibarra during the Noli and
later own change his identity as Simoun in El Fili shows Rizal’s duality moving to and from assimilation and
succession, a personality torn between pen and sword, sees Rizal’s inspiration of Philippine Revolution –
between reform and revolution[ CITATION Bal13 \l 13321 ]. Some historians would agree that Rizal was
indeed a reformist as his main objective towards the Philippine Islands under Spanish colonial rule. The
popular uprising against Spain in 1896 and his lack of support and endorsement for a revolution armed
struggle would complicate our opinion regarding his political thought.

The grievous consequence in dichotomizing the reform and revolution alternative affected the
national movement was pictured by Rizal and the La Liga Filipina against Bonifacio and the Katipunan. The
dichotomization leads to be counter-productive and instill “doubt of antoginism”. This was purely reflected
when the American attacks the Independent movement as anti-Rizal[ CITATION Oca01 \l 13321 ]. Also when
Dr. Pio Valenzuela testified in military court upon the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution, he attested
during his consultation with Rizal in Dapitan, that Rizal had strongly condemned an armed struggle for
independence when Valenzuela asked for his support. But years later, Valenzuela testified that Rizal had
been favorable to an uprising as long as the Filipinos were well-prepared, and well-supplied with
arms[CITATION Lau \l 13321 ]. Valenzuela said to historian Teodoro Agoncillo that he had lied to the Spanish
military authorities about Rizal's true stance toward a revolution in an effort to acquit him [ CITATION
Ago96 \l 13321 ]. This statement alone and other more statement could justify that Rizal’s thought is into the
revolutionary side.

Noli Me Tangere illustrates and exposes the tyranny of the Spanish Catholic priests and the ruling
government, basically Rizal incorporate what he sees in the reality world in his first novel. As he
incorporates his findings, he lets the target readers, the Filipinos to wake up to the reality of tyranny. The
young Crisostomo Ibarra symbolizes the opening of the eyes of the intellects just like Rizal which was spark
by Fr. Jose Burgos. Ibarra itself was a reflection of Rizal, a European educated man who returns for the hope
of change. Noli becomes a catalyst of revolution and charter of nationalism for Filipinos[CITATION Sch \l
13321 ]. El Filibusterismo as the sequel for Noli is a treatise of revolution[ CITATION Cap97 \l 13321 ] and a
veritable declaration of war against the colonial regime[ CITATION Qui99 \l 13321 ].

Throughout the sequel, there was an unfinished dialogue on reform and revolution between Ibarra
and Elias in the Noli, and continued Simoun and Basilio in the El Fili. Elias, a wanted criminal and a
miserable man but an idealistic one who wanted revolutionize the country and to be freed from Spanish
oppression. He was the primary supporter of revolution. We also have reformist such as Pilosopong Tasyo he
hopes for reformation although the discussion of Elias and Rizal was highlighted. Furthermore the flow of
events specifically the incident with Padre Damaso and Crisostomo Ibarra, Ibarra’s imprisonment and
sentenced execution, and his escape escalated to the response of revenge. The revenge symbolizes the plot of
revolution. Rizal as an author heavily emphasizes on the main protagonist and he did show in the character
of Simoun. Simoun was disgusted towards Basilio and Isagani’s plan of putting up a Spanish academy. The
radical attitude and behaviour of Simoun symbolizes that Rizal already identified himself with the apostle of
revolution[CITATION Gue03 \l 13321 ]. The extreme put into place when Simoun plots to blow up Kapitan
Tiago’s house during Paulita Gomez’s wedding reception. The failure and his suicide would be interpreted
by some that Rizal does not support the armed revolution. Yet we must remember that Basilio was one of the
victims of Spanish regime. It symbolizes that they already forget the atrocities.

Rizal may or Rizal is a counter-revolution, but with the sequence of the novel it, we can ask why he
is counter-revolutionary. He can be counter-revolutionary because he may be hopeful for reforms. But it may
be also that he is counter-revolution but not against because we are not ready to the risk of revolution which
he states when Dr. Pio Valenzuela visited him in Dapitan. He prescribes that Filipinos should prepare for the
incoming. Revolution may have to wait for maturity. It can be a manifestation that the Filipino people is not
yet ready because of insufficiency- lack of awareness, lack or support, lack of resources and the rest. Simoun
was not totally supported; some were in the state of illusion. His motives for revolution was base from
revenge, his interest and vengeance will never succeed the problems in his novels at the end were never
solved. His plan is more on a personal gain not for the greater good. Unlike Elias, in Rizal’s conversation
with Jose Alejandro, his roommate in Germany and later a general in the Philippine Revolution, Rizal
revealed that his favourite character was not Ibarra but Elias. As quoted by Alejandro, Rizal confessed:

He (Rizal) regretted very much having killed Elias instead of Ibarra, reasoning that
when he published the Noli his health was very much broken, and was very unsure of being
able to write the continuation and speak of a revolution. otherwise I would have preserved the
life of Elias, who was a noble character, patriotic, self-denying and disinterested – necessary
qualities in a man who leads a revolution – whereas Cristomo Ibarra was an egotist who only
decided to provoke the rebellion when he was hurt in his interests… with men like him,
success cannot be expected in their undertakings”[ CITATION Ale49 \l 13321 ].

Reform was never inclusive, but it was a tactic that is needed to be distinguished for the longer
strategy of separatism. [ CITATION Qui99 \l 13321 ]. Rizal maybe positioned himself to reforms but as he
incorporates to his novel – the reform seems useless and the presence of injustice will still be there.
Revolution was the final key, the way to prepare and execute will now depend to the revolutionaries. The
revolution should be ripe before executing it, since it is too risky. Meaningless to say, the end of the sequel
tides towards the context of revolution.

Rizal’s cousin Gallicano Apacible also expressed his misgiving about the view that Rizal was anti-
revolution. He argues for the contrary, finding that Rizal was a complete and unwavering separatist who
believed that only thru separating from Spain could Filipino achieve their social, civil and political
aspiration[ CITATION Qui99 \l 13321 ]. Rizal continued that Filipinos could not and ought not to expect
anything good to the Spaniards. Also recalling the election that lasted 3 days to elect a “responsible” – one
who would direct the Philippine Policy in Europe, Aplicable recalled:

“There were two candidates: Rizal and Marcelo Del Pilar. Many of us who supported
Rizal’s candidacy did so on the conviction that Rizal was a separatist and the more radical
one[CITATION Qui99 \p 36 \l 13321 ].”
 Jose Alejandro, Antonio Luna and Eldiberto Evangelist, all who are for separation against Spain
expressed that Rizal was a supporter of the revolution. They considered the peaceful campaign for reforms as
one tactic within the broad strategy of seperatism[ CITATION Qui99 \l 13321 ]. Rizal precluded the use of
force if became necessary, as his June 19, 1887 letter to Blumentritt reveals:

I can assure you that I have no desire to take part in conspiracies which seem to me
premature and risky. But if the government drives us to say, when there remains to us no
other hope than to seek our ruin in war, when Filipinos shall prefer to die rather than to
endure their miseries any longer, then I shall advocate violent means[CITATION Gue03 \l
13321 ].

With Rizal’s disillusionment with the Reform Movement, Luna expressed his support for Rizal and
sent him this letter (January 1892):

“The propaganda for assimilation is necessary but more active should the separatist
propaganda be, because we shall not obtain the first (i.e. assimilation) and even if we did
(which is almost impossible) we would be worse off than ever; the practical thing is to seek
adherents in order to shake off the yoke of Spain. I want to make clear therefore, what is in
my mind: that we must work for independence, organizing ourselves, converting ourselves
into apostles in order to gain men and money. For all this much study is necessary, a great
deal of tact, prudence and no boasting of our strength… I offer therefore my services, in this
sense, but with the sole condition that I shall be allowed to disengage myself from the active
campaign if I see it will only be an armed riot. It is not that I dream of success, rather I dream
of a resistance for which you understand me well enough; if they triumph over us let it be at
the cost of much blood. I shall go then to Manila and in all my acts always keep in mind my
duty as a separatist.[ CITATION Jos72 \l 13321 ]”

His colleagues in the inner circle knew that this is their ultimate objective. Realizing that the reforms
that is the wish list of the Propaganda Movement cannot be achieve the such as Philippine as a province of
Spain, reform was seen as a tactic – a campaign of enlightenment and later on developing the national
consciousness of the Filipinos[ CITATION Qui99 \l 13321 ]. With the reformist pushing for such reforms
while Spain took less action and attention, people gain more awareness about the tyrannical rule and began
supporting for separation as what the Katipunan movement started. As history is uncertain whether or not
Rizal refuses a revolutionary movement, the turn of events escalated to what resulted to the Philippine
Revolution and the quest of self-determination.

IV. Social and Economic thought

Regardless of what Rizal prefers, one thing is for sure; his thought as we expect is beyond moderate
or liberalism in the extent that he may show what is more radical during that time which is the ideologies in
the far-left (Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism).Some would ask if Rizal was exposed to the writings of
Marxism or any trend of Socialism. Actually he was exposed. His mentor and friend, Miguel Morayta who
is a professor of History at Universidad Central de Madrid; and friend Francisco Pi y Margall, an extreme
republican, a libertarian socialist, the president of the short-lived First Spanish Republic in 1873 and an
advocate of autonomy; both borrowed heavily from Proudhon’s Social Philosophy (Guerroro, 2003; Bonoan,
1992). Proudhon is considered by many to be the "father of anarchism"[ CITATION Gue70 \l 13321 ]. His
theory defines anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign" and wrote, "As man seeks justice in
equality, so society seeks order in anarchy." Rizal may have been introduced to Proudhon’s ideas. In his
novel El Filibusterismo, Simoun presented anarchist attitude especially in his plot to blow up Kapitan Tiago
house during Paulita Gomez’s wedding reception. His plot to kill not just the clergy and government officials
but also everybody regardless of being innocent of not, reflects him being an anarchist.

Rizal’s friend and his admiration to Pi y Margall may also shape his thought. Rizal knew the
stateman Margall and later become friends because Rizal was a friend of his daughter. Margall specifically
presented his government’s program of reform with this opening line: “All political revolutions are, at
bottom, a class war” (99). It was his government’s objective to pave the way for the emancipation of the
working classes through radical reforms. “The social question is the concern of all,” declares Pi y
Margall[ CITATION Asi05 \l 13321 ]. And this brings us right to Rizal. In fact Juan Luna had also written to
Rizal on the subject of socialism which he asked for guidance on what books to read on the subject matter.
Luna indeed was enthused over “Le Socialisme Contemporain”, described as “a conflation” of various
schools of socialist thought from utopians like St. Simon and Robert Owen to Marxist, anarchists and
Christian socialists (Ordonez, 2011; Guerrero, 2003). Rizal himself wrote a lengthy discussion on November
1891 with a Russian Naturalist about the principles and implication of the socialism of Leo Tolstoy.
[ CITATION Gue03 \l 13321 ]

Rizal’s novels and works reflect themes that are used as a tool for his social analysis of the
Philippine context. With or without knowledge of the Marxist rhetoric, Rizal indeed was employing Marxian
tools of analysis on illustrating how the conditions during the Spanish colonial Philippines[ CITATION
Bal13 \l 13321 ]. His works reveal how a group of people that had so much absolute power control over the
factors of production in an economic system who determined on retaining that power by whatever means it
was challenged by an inferior group( Filipinos) which has the intent in obtaining that power themselves. In
what ways do the current group (Spaniards) who controls the means of production, it would always be in an
exploitative matter. The Spanish colonial rule employs an Encomienda system throughout her colonies.
Under the Encomienda system, the native inhabitants in a given geographic region were entrusted to an
Encomendero or trustee as a reward for his service to the Spanish Crown. In return, the Encomendero was
authorized to collect tribute from the natives and to recruit workers for the polos y servicios. This system is
so extractive that it leads to force-labour.

In Marxian perspective, it is how the Spaniards extract and exploit our labour in return to support the
upper class. By the notion of class, Filipino was indeed a class in Rizal’s works. The American, French and
Russian revolution was not about nationalism but basically challenging the divine rights. The French and
Russian basically shifted the structure of the class paradigm, from monarch to a pluralistic area. The
American Revolution not just results to independence but also to a radical shift to those who hold power.
The sayings of Marx can be applied to Rizal as well: “The prescriptive content of Marx’s early conception of
nationality appears considerably more radical than the other democratic concepts of the nation that have been
drawn on the legacies of the French and American Revolution[ CITATION Ben95 \l 13321 ]. One is the
distinction between the restrictive nationality of the state and its supporting elites from the wider national
community. Indeed Rizal’s concept of the “Filipino” as a nationality can be compared to Marx’s concept of
Class. Filipino is a class, a group of people which is heavily exploited and oppress by such dominating class
– the Spaniards. This imposes that the concept of nationality of Rizal can reflect to the oppressive
characteristic of the upper class who indeed holds the means of production.
 The Propaganda Movement of the Philippines pushes for the abolition of the polos y servicios and
promotes equality among “Filipinos” –the native Spaniards or Insulares, the Creoles and the Indios. This
point to the concept of nationalism, where people who share a common language, history, and culture should
constitute a nation is also related to class. It signifies the conflicts between nationality and nationality,
specifically the awakening of national consciousness of the people under a colonial rule. Foreign domination
or colonization in our history always depicts exploitation and oppression. Land grabbing – the Regelian
doctrine & encomienda system, force labour, religion as a tool for repression, unequal rights and freedom,
repressive policies against the colony would always make a distinction that this colonial government and the
imperial states are the bourgeoisie in which Marx would pertain that they could not retain their status and
wealth without exploiting the lower class. This lower class then is the natives living in the colonial
territories. With or without the knowledge of Marx, Rizal definitely provided a framework that definitely
uses the Marxian analysis for class struggle. The economic system – Encomienda system and its exploitation
towards Filipino workers; the social stratification between Filipino and Spaniards; the religious orders began
retaking Philippine parishes; the colonial rule eventually showed its weaknesses and eventually gave up as it
sparks the revolution. The influx of the intellectuals such as Rizal contributed to the consciousness of the
people – this consciousness is not just nationalism but also class consciousness since people began to get
tired against the abuses and injustices of the Spanish Colonial system. Together with the awakening of
nationalism and the spark of class consciousness of the Filipino people, revolution was inevitable due to
Rizal’s action of providing the people the truth.

V. Conclusion

Rizal’s contemporary political thought revolves around the politics of change which was the
consequence of the three-hundred years of rule under Spanish Regime. His thought can be said as the
founder of Filipino Nationalism – which was resulted by the Propaganda Movement and later on the
Philippine Revolution. Through this process, one of the issues is that Rizal is uncertain between reform and
revolution which was reflected in his novels and his condemnation of a popular uprising against Spain in
1986. The common conception of his lack of support for the revolutionary armed struggle even more
complicated to his political thought. It is believed that he was never a revolutionary but a reformist to the
end. But after the creation of the novels, his loss of hope and disillusion to the Propaganda Movement, the
rising turmoil against the Spaniards, and the turn of events – Rizal may have change his opinion. Yet in the
end we may Rizal shifted his opinions. His last work, Mi Ultimo Adios reflects his strong love for the nation,
which connotes that the Philippines deserve more: a sense of nationalism that truly push for separatism. And
also one insight from the Spanish Advocate General in his Trial cited:

…limits him (Rizal) to condemning the present rebellious movement as premature and
because he considers its success impossible in this time…For Rizal it is a question of
opportunity, not of principles or objectives…[CITATION Gue03 \p 422 \l 13321 ]

As Father Schumacher would point out, this is a justly naive interpretation of Jose Rizal’s thoughts,
but correct in spirit, for Rizal really never wavered from his belief that the Filipinos must be free. Though, he
always maintained that it was the Filipinos must work for it, and not only through force of arms or feats of
strength. Schumacher summed it:

But, consistent with his views from the Noli onward, he maintained to the end that
the revolutionary goal was to create a nation of Filipinos conscious of their human and
national dignity and ready to sacrifice themselves to defend it…He did not live to see that
 day. But he had pointed the way for his countrymen to follow, not just with his books, but
with his life and with his death[ CITATION Sch \l 13321 ].

Regardless what he opted to side on, the revolution was inevitable. The Philippine Revolution
happened, and basically his thought contributed to the struggle of the Filipinos in gaining self-determination
and independence. His thought describes and criticizes the whole society under Spain – the social injustice
between Filipinos and Spaniards; the extractive and exploitative economic institutions especially of polos y
servicio or force labor; and the wish for greater opportunity and participation in the local, national and
federal government and the church. This was his thought, the thought of change which reflects all these three
cores (economic, political and social). And his thought contributed to the future of the Philippines and also
influences other nations. It helped us in building the nation and ignites us Filipinos in looking the problems
of our society.

Regardless of preference on who our national hero or favourite hero, we must be like Rizal. Rizal
was not blind to the reality and he reflects to the problems which the Filipino suffers. He was a fighter,
regardless of being a reformist or revolutionary. And his actions lead to the solving the problem. He may be
called as a socialist, liberal, reformist or revolutionary; but one is sure that Rizal indeed was a humanist. His
thought of change basically reflects his love for the people. His willingness to fight against the Spaniards by
the weapon of pen instead of the sword is not a reflection of reform over revolution but as the pen as a tool
of both reform and revolution. Even though he knew the risk of what he is doing, he pursues his aims for the
greater love and interest. His sacrifice of his life for his countrymen is a conviction of a revolutionary man,
as Che Guevara quoted: “The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love”. Rizal’s death and all the
martyrs immortalize their love for the people. The greatest love that one can give to another is his life which
they sacrificed for the sake of the Filipino people against such tyrannical rule and oppression.

Bibliography
Agoncillo, T. (1996). The Revolt of the Masses. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Alejandro, J. (1949). The Price of Freedom (La Senda del Sacrificio). Manila: Spanish orinal published in
1933.

Asiniero, G. (2005). La Liga in Rizal Scholarship. Retrieved from Asian Studies: Journal of Critical
Perspectives on Asia: http://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-49-1-2013/La%20Liga%20in
%20Rizal%20Scholarship%20-%20Aseniero.pdf

Balbin, A. (2013, November). Demystifying the Political Ideas of Jose Rizal through Noli Me Tangere and
El Filibusterimo. Baguio City: Master thesis, University of the Cordillera.

Benner, E. (1995). Really Existing Nationalism: A post-communist view from Marx and Engels. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Bonoan, R. J. (1992). Spanish Krausism and Rizal. In Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic
Viewpoints . Manila: Ateneo de Manila University.

Capino, Gonzales, & Pineda. (1997). Rizal's Life, Works and Writings. Quezon City: JMC Press.
Craig, A. (2007). Lineage, Life and Labors of Rizal. Retrieved from Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/details/lineagelifeandl00craigoog

Foreman, J. (1906). The Philippine Islands: A Political, Geographical, Ethnographical, Social, and
Commercial History of the Philippine Archipelago. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Guerin, D. (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Guerrero, L. M. (2003). The First Filipino: A Biography of Rizal. Manila, Philippines: National Heroes
Commission and Guerrero Publishing.

Jose, V. (1972). Th Rise and Fall of Antonio Luna. Quezon City: University of the Philippine Press.

Laubach, F. C. (1925). The people of the Philippines: their religious progress and preparation for spiritual
leadership in the Far East. New York: George H. Doran Company.

Ocampo, A. (2001). Meaning & History: The Rizal Lectures. Pasig City: Anvil Publishing Inc.

Ordonez, E. (2011, October 11). Rizal and Socialism. Retrieved from Stuart Santiago Archives:
http://stuartsantiago.com/rizal-and-socialism-3/

Quibuyen, F. (1999). A Nation Aborted: Rizal, American Hegemony, & Philippine Nationalism. Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Schumacher, J. (2008). The Making of a Nation: Essays on 19th century Filipino Nationalism. Quezon City,
Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Zaide, G. (1984). Philippine History and Government. . Manila: National Bookstore Printing Press.

Zaide, G. F. (1957). Philippine Political and Cultural History: The Philippines Since the British Invasion II .
Manila: McCullough Printing Company.