The time of Karl Marx, for example, was characterized by changes spawned by industrial revolution. Because of industrialization, the landscape of a city changed enormously so as the society in general –from agricultural to industrial or commercial district. To recall, before the industrial revolution, much of Europe was agricultural –technically known as feudalistic society. A certain agricultural land was ruled by a feudal lord; his substituents were the tenants. Tenants tilled the land and paid tributes to the lord. In return, the lord gave protection to the tenants in times of war against intruders. During the Spanish colonial administration, Philippines was under the “encomienda system” –more or less akin to the feudalism in Europe. Under this system, an “hacienda” was owned by a Spanish settler by virtue of a Royal Decree and all of its original inhabitants became tenants of the “haciendero.” What was significant of encomienda system in the Philippines is that, perhaps, it was the first kind of land grabbing in the islands.
Industrial age marked the end of feudalism. Industries mushroomed in cities. Cities were turned into industrial and/or commercial districts, which enticed people to look for better opportunities like jobs rather than work in haciendas. Cities, then, shone like a jewel to the eyes of workers, and investors alike. On the part of the workers, cities are places where they could find work, earn a living and support their families. On the part of the investors, cities are good avenues for them to invest and gain more profit. Eventually, cities became centers of material wealth and pride of those people living in the city. However, there were negative faces of industrial cities, which puzzled social thinkers, sociologists in particular. Poverty is one of the evils of industrialization. Karl Marx theorized that poverty was caused by social injustice. Social institutions, economic and government institutions in particular, were unjust which ensued to a big gap existing between the capitalists and workers. The workers who were working in unfavourable conditions were given less share of the total income of the company; the owners enjoyed the bigger share. Marx noted that these practices made the rich richer and the poor poorer. And, it’s blatantly unjust!
Social injustice makes thinkers find ways to effect change in the existing status quo of the society. If a class of people is abused or exploited by the other class, or say, “by the influential or the rich,” then it’s unjust. If these unjust practices and structures are prevalent, then there is a need to change its current status quo to a more just one. For Marx, bloody revolution is a favourable means to change bourgeois society. Many dictators in different parts of the world adapted Marxism and took bloody revolution to effect drastic changes in their particular nations. Many of them, if not all, were successful in taking over the government yet, in other side of coin, it was a failure because human abuses got worst. Marxism as an ideology has helped shape modern societies with negative and positive features, which become lessons in the continuing formation or transformation of societies today. One positive effect, maybe, of Marxism as witnessed in some communist European countries is that the collapse of communism proves that democracy is better than communism. Most communist countries are dictatorial or authoritarian and totalitarian. Citizens shall work for the good of the state. The state, in return, is duty-bound to give what is good for its citizens. Of course, this is what is ideal in communism. It turns out, however, that only dictators enjoy the wealth of their patrimony but their citizens suffer suppression from them.
In modern times, democracy is at its best as a form of government and a way of life. History proves that democracy is best for all people to attain a certain sense of self-realization in life. Democracy as a form of government promises equal opportunities for all people to be voted in public offices. Democracy as a way life promises equal opportunities for each and every citizen to grow professionally or be happy in life. However, democratic society does not promise all values necessary for one’s social life. There are still a number of cases of injustices and human rights abuses in any democratic society. For example, illegal activities like drug trade and use are still rampant in democratic countries like in the Philippines. Government pursuing policies to end illegal drug trade and use may violate human rights in the process like again “allegedly” happening in the Philippines. Many other more telling stories reveal how democracy as an ideology creates public spaces where social injustice still is happening.
Because of this, social transformation is sought for –a transformation of society into a better one. If pressed what is meant by a “better society,” it’s a kind of society with less cases of social injustice and human rights abuses. A better way to do this is through a “legal battle.” It’s a battle without any use of arms as in bloody revolution or rebellion. It’s a battle which takes place in the public arena, which at present, refers to the arena of legislation. In the Philippine politics, it is in the arena of Congress and Senate. To effect changes in society starts its promulgation in either house, House of Congress or House of Senate. After its thorough deliberation among members of Houses, it will come out in a form of a bill. Then, the executive will, or will not, sign it into law of the land. Once signed by the executive, it’s ready for implementation. The scope and extent of this law will take gradual changes in the lives of the people under the jurisdiction of the state.
A legal battle takes a long process. But, it’s the only way through which social transformation is rationalized and not done in a drastic way.
