Sunday, 27 November 2011

"Democracy is for the weak!" and other ideas that made Democracy, Freedom, Development a word being raped by Elitism

"Democracy is for the weak!" 
and other ideas that made Democracy, Freedom, Development a word 
being raped by Elitism (and by the Elitists to be)

by Katleah Iskre Ulrike

To those who are gravely offended, sorry, but this shows the perspective of an Elitist who ought to rape "Democracy" most of the time for their benefit. Simply thinking that acting as guides yet the end isn't on the people but to themselves who, basing much on the use of words to curry people with and trying to control somebody else's corrupts the very essence of Democracy. Obviously, countries like America took pride in that Democracy, but as we dig deeper we sought that Democracy meant material things to accumulate using a word of mouth and an eye to see than of freedoms responsibly cherished with; same as other countries whose demos kratia is not really a demos kratia at all.

However, to justify the title, "Democracy" became a term raped by the elite as it utilizes popular sentiment, policy, courts and assemblies all for the sake of preserving its very own privileges especially those of a feudal and capitalist one. Wondering that in midst of the current crisis people are yearning for democratization of wealth from those who exceeded its accumulation from every heck of it. How wonder why people didn't mind that the so-called "Democracy" being cherished upon is limited to an alibi without responsibility, a cause for the elite to carry on their accumulation of profits and justify to do their cherished privileges; worse, of using the masses to curry benefit from them.

That, while maintaining the trappings of Democracy, of progress and development, the ruling class rather plays those words and meanings to underestimate the majority. Yes, that despite having mass media, criticism became tightly controlled, same goes as civil liberties and political freedom; that freedom being emphasised is economic rather than social, that big business, oligarchs benefited from the democracy the current system venting upon. Otherwise, would say that Democracy is used to be played, Democracy is a myth, Democracy is a word to be vented on to the frail, Democracy is for the weak!

Again, sorry for the words, but these somehow showed the tendency of a ruling gentry towards an idea they tried to banner upon. Yes, as the liesure class benefited and enjoyed the freedoms Democracy said upon, the poor, the destitute endured the hardships that they earned less regardless of having minimal freedoms such as to criticize, but most end up feeling the pangs of repression just because of criticizing a system who speaks of freedom to criticize.

One of which to justify Democracy being used by the ruling gentry is of being controlled and its ideas circumvented. And since they used the weak with a hodge-podge of populist rhetoric and faux-progressivism, it all serves as toppings ensuring their control no matter what comes along especially against to their very own priviledges especially those of property and the right to acquire and gain from it.

"Elite Theory": Democracy for the Elite

For sure most people in the Philippines would agree to that idea to say that Democracy in the Philippines is controlled by affluent elite, or to others be called as Oligarchs. Whether domestic or foreign, these affluent people, dominating over cultural, commercial, agricultural and even industrial field, had the means to control government affairs in order to maintain age-old order in the country.

As according to Wikipedia:

 "The theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Through positions in corporations or on corporate boards, and influence over the policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" are able to exert significant power over the policy decisions of corporations and governments..."

And somehow it likely to be summarized as:

"Elite as the Government, people are the Used."

Yes, as more and more people are being used enough by the system, especially through the word “Democracy” as its basis for age-old system-sponsored subjugation and repression, as evidenced by having a backward agricultural economy and emphasis on getting contented on foreign imports, seeing elitist extravagance in midst of growing “squatters”, and technology with less reliance on development, the facades of development made by the system tend to use it just to create foolishness amongst everyone else who endured increase in commodity and oil prices, of insisting in mere semi-employment (of small to medium enterprise) than on large scale industrialization plans, whilst those who speak of Democracy, Freedom are the ones who insist on opening to the bigger exploiter.

Obviously, in midst of the global financial crisis lies the system's efforts to keep the dilapidated order by a hodge-podge of populism and paper reforms in it. In the Philippines, it is even worsened by a growing cult of personalities encouraged by the system itself as one of its own freedom to speak of achievement in an overtly personalistic way, while on the other hand foolish people, like their elitist equivalents, preach Freedom and Democracy to push through the ideas what their elitist rivals wanted: of massive opening to foreigners as squatters with privileges, whilst the masses are likely to be pushed into the eternal pitfall of modern-day serfdom both agricultural and industrial. Indeed, this is the Democracy of the Elite, and of the Elitists to be happened to be both sides of the same coin as they preach the same sentiment and of fooling the poor. Even Ayn Rand herself would think optimistically on Elites ruling than of the majority whom she called moochers and thieves in her writeups; to the extent of being against Democracy itself, as she said:

"“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose."

And one of her followers even elaborated it with:

"Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom."

Well, Rand is objectivically enough in what she said so as she herself, like Nietzsche would prefer Elitism and trying hard to act like Ubermenschen subjugating this and that for their benefit; including those of using phrases such as "Democracy" and "Freedom"  for their convenience, satisfaction while keeping the poor in the poorhouse without consideration. Yes, that the banks gained from Obama's programs (or rather say from the taxes), from the war as financiers, and from the people who still trying to get hard-earned money. 

Freedom? Freedom for whom?

Since the rich made Democracy bastardised, so is the idea of Freedom. As the Oligarchs, Elitists, and its stooges, emphasised this idea largely based on Economics, it became nearly codified that those who had the wealth had freedom instead of the supposedly fundamental idea that Freedom "transcends" all classes. In Conservatively-inclined families for instance, individual freedom is greatly underestimated by the PaterFamilias simply because of having Economic power entrusted unto that person-that going outside, watching television, or even using gadgetry be end up vetoed just because of narrow reasons such as "I pay this and that" to justify the cause. 

So are other nations that reduced Democracy to those who afford to pay taxes. It may also meant those who can't afford to pay are Freedomless and deserved to work longer and pay to experience in it; worse, that in midst of the growing crisis and prices of commodities will they afford to pay for the sake of    Democratic rights?

And since there are those who still kept on preaching may as well think that they are worse than what they described as parasites for they themselves as parasites trying to justify as their will to do so-that made Ferdinand Marcos think, in pursuit of solidifying his rule coined verses from Gunnar Myrdal and other writers in his book. Once, this person read a book that coined Myrdal's words, that as if he tend to put the Philippines under martial rule and called it as Revolution and setting forth Development to end the reign of Oligarchs and the like, but the change advance further despite the facades being built? How come there are strikes during that time? This person even think that one of his assumptions mirror today's events, that would say that the "Capitalist-Conservative" Nightmare of the rich being impoverished and be brought to the level of the poor is likely for most of these rich are quite experiencing debts or its fellow rich scrambling more to the extent of swallowing its fellow one and justified as its freedom and obligation, both as obligation as earners who earn a lot, calling it as hard earned and with a right to monopolize everything to the extent of privatizing an entire society as what Paulo Alcazaren thinks of.

This person would even think and say that this writeup is not against Freedom and Democracy, but like the two, both idea and word itself became bastardised and raped by those ought to justify interest of a particular class like those who afford in it, after all it all reminds of the Royalists in France whose idea speaks of:

"Government on High, by a marked noble elite. And insisted vote censitaire: a form of democracy limited to taxpayers...preserving aristocracy and promoting absolutism..."

These words mirror those who, like the ones from the past, also consistently parroting the same unequal idea. And if insisted of having Democracy and Freedom reduced to taxpayers, or rather say those who afford to pay, how about those who really worked hard yet less pay? Will they also pay bigger taxes to afford freedoms and enjoy the privileges of a Democratic society? The way similar those who afford to buy from the malls owned by Henry Sy and Jaime Zobel de Ayala?

This reminds of one part from the song Internationale by Pottier, and it said:

The society oppresses and its law cheats, 
The Taxes bleed the unfortunate; 
No duty is imposed on the rich, 
“Equal rights” is a hollow phrase. 
Enough languishing in custody; 
Equality needs other laws: 
And it says “no rights without obligations”, 
And so “no obligations without rights!”

After all, it is not merely an imagination but a reality trying to be covered by an illusion such those of "Rights" as Elitists insisted upon and trying to act like those of the have not. The song Internationale even speaks of the dubious reality that Freedom is to those who afford in it while Obligation be imposed on the have not, obviously, Freedom and Democracy is reduced into an illusion vented by vested interests to those wanting to get it yet those who benefited are those who afford to enjoy that priviledges while those who really work hard to earn simply endure getting dictated with a 'justified' unfair share; obviously, this person think that one reason those who afford would say that "You must be thankful you have a job so stop complaining and be contented on what we gave you" that in fact, an alibi to justify the cause of hoarding more whilst the other be compelled to rage, especially in midst of the growing prices of commodities, low value of currency, and low salaries and unfair wages. Yes, that shows how the laborer had to deal with "Obligations" to have "Rights" such those of the "Obligation" of toil and pay to have the "Right" of resting while the Elitist ought to have "Rights" before "Obligations" especially the right for satisfaction though profiteering and an obligation through paying taxes.

So again, Freedom? Freedom for whom?

As calls for massive privatization of the society and control by those who dare to control in it in all spheres of life (like Elites, Oligarchs, and its cohorts), reducing public spending in favor of increasing payments, all forms of entirely "Purist" Capitalism as liberative and Democratic made its  very own idea, with the alibi of this and that as "Human Nature" are rather described as foolishness as it rapes Democracy and Freedom many times for their very own convenience. Freedom for whom? As what others think of insisting a privatized society under a privileged Elite and its hired thugs, moochers fulfilling obligations of maintaining their privileges and exploiting more in pursuit of their Freedoms especially against those who really forge, till to earn for basic things such as food, clothing and shelter. It would be good if they ought to legalize Marijuana for it is also a right to smoke and benefited from it; but will they do so? It would be a mixed reaction amongst those people especially those who favor contentment on unjust foreign trade rather than domestic manufacturing by simply against the production of that said plant. (seems that the writeup is becoming irrelevant)

Well, worthy of remembering Nietzsche saying that Women, Socialism, Equality, Democracy belong in an inferior world, that Morality belongs to the few and not for everyone. For sure Freedom includes in that few for, using their perspective, it is inherent right to exploit for their self-gratification as part of human nature. 

"We cannot work because we lack the means"
-An alibi for accumulate for self, not for everyone

"The “brilliant” capitalist economists maintain that we cannot work because we lack the means. That is nonsense. The less we work, the less must be our means, and the greater the unproductive waste and destruction of our national resources. The more we work, the greater our capital, and therefore the greater the results of our labor."

These are the words said in a Nazi writeup entitled "Emergency Economic Program of the NSDAP" that was made in the 1930s. This "Economic Program" was desperately made in pursuit of countering the Great Depression Germany hath endured in, but then it end up ceased as Hitler end up collaborated with the elite whilst Gregor Strasser, the "Left" Nazi end up resigned from his post.

The writeup concerning unemployment, poverty and a need for genuine social welfare and development seemed to be good enough especially as it tries to appeal to the poor and the unemployed, but does it mean it would democratize wealth, ensuring the well being of the people especially in midst of today's socio-economic crisis with its series of mass protests?

It makes sense enough Strasser said so, but that alibi said by some economists are even coupled with exploitation. Stalin, in his "Foundations of Leninism" spoke about the character of Russians in resorting themselves into Revolution against the Tsarist regime:

  "The hideous forms of exploitation in the factories, coupled with the intolerable police regime of the tsarist henchmen -- a circumstance which transformed every important strike of the workers into an imposing political action and steeled the working class as a force that was revolutionary to the end."  

Well, most Capitalists remained cling to their theory of lacking everything as the cause of layoffs and unemployment, but at the same time they know how to gain profits pretty well as they had less restrictions such as paying taxes, or even using cheap labor and means of exploitative actions, including less salaries, benefits despite overtime as its means for accumulating profit and perhaps, even using Singapore or any other country as its alibi for having foreign investors enter "scot free"; but speaking of Singapore, how come Singaporeans had good welfare spending under the People's Action Party? Does it mean "Foreign Investors" ought pay bigger taxes for social spending such as supporting cooperatives despite having 100% foreign control in their respective institutions?

Also thinking that the reason of lacking everything is quite very narrow in order to justify profiteering large-scale. For sure big businesses wanted deregulations, less taxes, more freedoms (of theirs of course), and perhaps more alibis to say the word "lack" to everyone not on employment but on distribution of goods and services. Vegetables for example, are being bought expensively due to middlemen with the intention to say came far away or lack of supply to distribute in, yet obviously they bought it cheap from a farmer that supposedly earn more from the harvest than less from what the middleman sees of and bought from it, so are the others whose Democracy and Freedom includes to think buy cheap and sell dear to everyone especially who had the capacity to afford yet difficult to buy in it-except factory and farm prices of course! So are other establishments that ought to sell a single wardrobe that costs 20.000 yet came from a factory that makes the same wardrobe that costs 800, 1000 or 1,500! 

The Singapore experience: Free trade with controls, market economy 
...with progressive fiscal social policy (as others don’t know much about it)

Singapore, one of the countries “Free Trade” and pro-Foreign interests looked upon, is a country whose economy emphasized foreign investment as its contributor for its progress, as allegedly evidenced by its highly developed market-based economy, based historically on extended entrepôt trade,  with a highest trade to GDP ratio in the world at 407.9 percent, signifying the importance of trade to its economy.

However, despite its progress made out of its emphasis on being a trade outpost, of having good labor power, Singapore’s development still emphasise economic planning, since the ruling party, being social democrat in its ideology, still showed pragmatism in it’s economy:  of having a market-based economy while on the other an emphasis on social welfare in pursuit of a growing living standards.

According to Wikipedia, the People's Action Party of Singapore, in regards to its macroeconomics, speaks of the need for some welfare spending, pragmatic economic interventionism and general Keynesian economic policy. However, free-market policies have been popular since the 1980s as part of the wider implementation of a meritocracy in civil society, and Singapore frequently ranks extremely highly on indices of "economic freedom" published by economically liberal organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

And despite having a free trade economy due to having a good influx of foreign investment, of companies, still the People's Action Party claimed itself to be a socialist party (despite resigned from the Socialist International) pointing out its regulation of the private sector, activist intervention in the economy, and social policies as evidences of it, but despite calling itself 'socialist' it would rather be described as those who do a centrist, 'third way' approach to the economy: having free trade yet having a degree of regulation; that again, would make even different from Philippines as the former had minimal resources yet good labor power whilst the latter had good resources yet a neglected labor power due to massive unemployment with a government treating unemployment as a mere problem propaganda and charity-like action (such as in the form of creating enterprises) could be answered upon with, as well as reliance on foreign aid and emphasis on export of raw materials, imports rather than domestic growth through genuine development.

But on the other hand, Singapore’s earlier policies, such as regulating private enterprises, intervention in the economy, and progressive fiscal social policies (especially those of workfare and meritocracy) would offer means to support the economy well enough as it inculcates development and self-sufficiency. The Philippines, having good amount of natural resources, if being used in a sustainable way and under domestic control meant emphasising domestic development as one of the foundations of an improved economy as what the earlier quote said of:

"The more we work, the greater our capital, and therefore the greater the results of our labor."

That would even be better over what those who ranted upon the Singapore experience or rather say the Singapore experience under Neoliberalism.  After all, Singapore’s earlier policies in its development even called it as "Socialism that works: the Singaporean way."

And yet the elite who tend to look at the Singaporean example is as if reading 1984 by Orwell or Brave New World by Huxley optimistically because of a system that stresses discipline and order. I do acknowledge the discipline and order of the Singaporeans, but to mis-acknowledge the early days of the Singaporean experience seemed to show how ignorant they are; after all will they agree themselves being intervened, of having a progressive fiscal social policy on its fellowmen, of being regulated in a certain degree, or of having cooperatives competing against their dominancy? Nope-for it is contradictory to their privileges despite parroting Democracy for the frail and weak.

So what do we expect from those who "Rape"?

As what the title says, the exploitative nature of those behind the system made Democracy, Freedom, Development, Justice, or any other ideal as if like a possession. Yes, that as they controlled everything, from media to military affairs, what we sought is simply exploitation, desecration and control for self-gratification. Like Jack London in his book "Iron Heel", the Oligarchy, in pursuit of controlling every social spheres,  manage to squeeze out the middle class by bankrupting most small to mid-sized business as well as reducing all farmers to effective serfdom and its workers to slave labor.

And as expected, Banks, Oligarchs, Elites, its hired thugs, as venting rage around the world and preaching their near-meaningless doctrine in midst of the crisis, tend to insist from time to time justifying their exploitation by calling it as their inherent right without hindrance like taxes and regulations. And this time, as the crisis worsens, who's to blame? The individuals who worked hard for cash or those who accumulated more from someone else's sweat? Debts are rising and thus directly affects the third world such as the Philippines whose system is as antiquated and backward with a small fraction chanting for foreign exploitation as a panacea for the crisis, but does it mean will freeze debts? Inculcate Development like the buildings of Makati? The masses remained destitute despite indirectly paying their obligations yet having less paid and perhaps no benefit at all to the extent of ending up whether as unemployed or as lumpen, so what do we expect from those who "Rape" the idea that is called "Democracy?" It turned out to be a Polyarchy as what everyone sees of it, then this time with people chanting "Free trade!" "Open markets!" "Foreign acquisition of assets!" and other kinds of bullshit hurling against the poor who called for Land Reform and Domestic-based industrialization for the third world Philippines. 

After all, no matter what they desperately ought to say so will end up say that the Philippines insisted a model that is Filipino enough with the foreign ones serving as an inspiration. Right wingers, would also say in this writeup as tainted by "Communism" or the writer as a "Communist" and say that the model would be entirely based from the Chinese and North Korean BUT SOCIALISM ISN'T BEEN IMPLIMENTED nor THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T REPRESENTED BY THE PEOPLE TO IMPLEMENT ITS GOALS SUCH AS A SOCIO-ECONOMIC ONE. To look at history, China became progressive in its early stage of development as they used agriculture and light industry as its base for the economy, so must be the Philippines; Cuba utilized lately its resources to develop other uses such as Sugarcane for other uses aside from table sugar and alcohol; and Singapore with its policies involving the creation of cooperatives and the right of  regulating the Private sector in its heydays, so must be the Philippines; but then the system remained under the elite so few or no policy similar to that ought to be set so for it is different from what they think of-that is letting development away to the private sector, especially those of a foreign owned one. Every country at first start development IN ONE COUNTRY with domestic brain and brawn being utilized directly for that cause such as Development, of making Democracy really a People's power by maximizing the power of the masses willing to contribute in a future that is promising enough for them than of a Polyarchy that thinks of Democracy and Freedom as a mere rhetoric to justify their wishes such those of exploiting everyone for their nonsense nor telling about the Singaporean example yet not knowing that social services are emphasised also out of working hard for it, makes this writer remember Port Sunlight.

And again, if they speak Democracy, Freedom, Justice, might as well tell them if they want to legalize cannabis and methamphetamine since that is a human right to snort and smoke same as Tobacco had enjoyed its legality. But perhaps they'll choose Meth than Marijuana for they hate the herb.

However, to those who think about why there's Marijuana in this writeup,  sorry this person is not a drug user.