"All after reading a pride-filled
(yet near hopeless) quote"
(Or again, criticizing those who dare the impossible with their nonsense;
Of joining the bandwagon withoutnunderstanding,
And revisiting an aspiration-filled, unshackled past)
Supposedly, this writeup tackles about Burmese Society under the Military Junta, especially its culture and other stuff this writer usually takes interest in it; however, due to a certain writeup that tackles much about their idea, obviously serving as an ideological guide for their ruling, it somehow all reminds of someone whom trying to justify yet failed to expand his reason regarding the idea he had stated.
Revisiting the quotes (and his utopia)
It was years ago when this writer had dealt with someone who tried much to insist his thinking yet failed to expand what he tends to think of. That person may had read the works of Marx, Mao, Hitler, even those of Ayn Rand and the trying hard Centrists trying to balance social justice and free enterprise; and yet despite reading and analyzing such works, rather failed to understand and instead resort to a hodge-podge of ideas diluted from the works he had read and more of his, and his group's invocations:
"The Filipino spirit is waterproof..."
"Ideas make the Idealist real..."
And others that this writer chose not to write it over. Most of the quotes this writer had sought and read are quite idealistic for a reader, idealistic in a sense that they wanted to take pride in their race, that they had wanted change, development, and advancement both for themselves and their respective communities; and yet most are too utopian, rather than realistic on what they ought to convey much.
"Impossible...waterproof..."
As this writer continue recalling those pride-filled brouhahas, seems that they had treated what they had read as if a holy book to be venerated, ideas to be memorized and less to be understood. The quotes shown as an example would say that one tries to create its own maxim of thought by borrowing those from Marx and Rand, Hitler and Mussolini, creating a word salad that tries to invoke his own thought that is, confusing.
Admittingly speaking, the third quotation stated above seemed to be an unforgettable for this writer since that person had said it much during a discussion. That self-proclaimed idealist tries much to justify idealism over scientific thought, or let's just say the reality in handling matters such as in building a modern society.
However, if Ideas makes the Idealist real, then where did that person took those so-called ideas? From imagination? From its own barren mindset? It's all but strange that people like that person afford to oppose how visible things around constitutes ideas and putting it into action, that one has to analyze how things happen and had it examined further such as through experimentation. The quest for immortality nor transforming things into gold isn't just through spellbooks and stuff, but requires things that should be taken, or sorry to say so; it has to depend on a matter, on the reality in seeking consciousness prior to making certain changes.
Just like one quote made by the Burmese Revolutionary Council. As it says:
"the flux of his mind depends on his aggregate of matter; his mind cannot exist without this aggregate of matter on which it must continually depend;
while the mind, dependent as it is on matter, is not a material principle, having no stuff or substance, is nevertheless a living reality; mind is the state of consciousness as a whole;
mind which is sentient and matter which is not are two different principles of nature and they meet in man in a continuing state of flux."
Thus, contrary to what the kid whom trying to profess himself as an idealist, then he had forgotten that the ideas that made himself real had to depend on the matter his senses had brought and make what comes from his mind; in a way prehistoric man, after seeing thunder struck into a tree that brought fire, had to seek other means to create something that can brought heat for his body such as making friction out of wood or stone.
So is in seeing the metamporphosis of any other creature, such as a butterfly, or a hatching of a bird from its egg; that somehow made people who had sought repressive policies, and yearning for changes, giving an idea for a national regneration, a national metamorphosis.
On the other hand, in reading the quote "The future belongs to dare the impossible", it may sound easier for an individual to make an impossible one possible for that person alone; that individuals whom became millionaires had spent time working and saving according to their official biographies, but obviously, these people had to win acquaintances closer, if not friends in order to win that so-called impossible! Such distortion of the said quote, bannered by daydreaming individuals spending time playing games and picking fantasies guised as ideas is all but a mockery of those whom aspiring for an advancement, such as putting an end to a centuries-old repression; knowing that as for this writer, daring the impossible has to deal with reality rather than a roly-poly of fantasies possibly doom to fail. People had to protest calling for wage increases and lowering down of cost of commodities despite its impossibility simply because contenting on low wages and seeing increasing prices, all despite saving and austerity measures, isn't enough to lessen the problem! The Bolshevik's "Peace, Land and Bread" had dealt much with the sufferings coming from the soldiers, peasants, and workers desiring those that are deemed impossible the way "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" being tried in the French during the Revolution; yes, those are deemed impossible yet different from those who wanted rocketships, supersonic jets, pseudo-classical, if not modern edifices a la Burma or Nazi Germany yet aloof in dealing real domestic issues in a third world country such as unemployment, hunger, and poverty; or let's just say they are too "utopian" to vent something other than appealing to the people.
So are those who had dreamed and said much of self reliance, of dreaming an industrialized, self sufficient society; and yet consistently bannering the need for foreign capital is even a mockery of daring the impossible and the idea they ought to convey much; and they afford to oppose those of Hitler and Stalin, they praised those who are socially conservative yet using their conservatism to justify their neoliberal nonsense. Pinochet and Thatcher everyone? Like the former two, the latter had bannered patriotism, progress, and stability yet being undermined as they become asswipes of international capital.
So was describing the raped spirit of the Filipino as "waterpoof." Sorry to those who may ought to offend, but since institutions and concerned individuals take pride in having the Filipino race can withstand the rain and heat, is that enough? Corrupt officials and certain private personages had squander people's money for their personal benefit while afford to brag a race that can withstand the wind, heat and storm?
Yes,the Filipino's spirit can withstand for a moment of time, but does not mean they should remain themselves as victims waiting for aid and forcing to content on the so-called "benevolence" of corrupt officials and pseudo-idealistic personages and groups. The incident made by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng last 2009 had been used as a pre-election nonsense by politicians responding the emotions of the victims in pursuit of seeking votes; while those at Tacloban, ravaged by Yolanda, desperate for food, had resorted to attacking malls and groceries searching not just food but things to expropriate- or what the media said much: Looting.
Right was Ninotchka Rosca to criticize the media's bastardization of the Filipino as a resilient being, whose spirit as waterproof, yet not knowing that the Filipino, with all the events happened, also able to transform from its tragedy than letting themselves content in the nonsense what its own system enjoyed in it. As according to her writeup being shown at Yahoo:
"Across oceans and throughout the five continents of this Earth, we carry the tales of our old heroes and muses, our elementals, who confront, in each re-telling, tests of strength and spirit.
Some break, like Mariang Makiling who hides in a thousand-year hibernation; others metamorphose, like Bernardo Carpio who becomes a pillar of stone stopping cliffs from caving in on his village.
We may not remember their old names – names being the first to be erased under colonialism – but we remember how they were and how we are supposed to be: metamorphic.
What have we become after Yolanda?
These two legends represent the twin possibilities for the Filipinos’ metamorphosis. Both are inexplicable outside of the local paradigm. Just as what we’re watching now in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda seems inexplicable.
Who can fathom what drives a woman to open body bags of putrefying corpses in search of a husband, a son, a daughter? At the end of a gaze that has lingered over a hundred dead faces, what is she now?
Who can measure the rage of the peaceable man breaking through the walls of groceries, warehouses, shopping malls? And having pierced both law and walls of Authority, what is he now?"
Sorry to say, but to sum it all, the system had exploited, raped the Filipino as a resilient being, not knowinh that they are susceptible to change, that the peaceful dwellers of Tacloban becomes a raging mob expropriating things in pursuit of survival. Yes, the Filipino can withstand the rain and heat, but as time goes by, it has to react and give way to certain changes in its own community, knowing that should he or she had content with the flood, earthquake, and landslide? There are more ideas people had offered such as those of preparedness, yet the system quite aloof at those while spending its budget on relief efforts, leaving the rehabilitation efforts on the hands of big private enterprise that rather negates its objectives in favor of commercialization.
Anyways, good to hear the efforts, seeing how these people trying to survive, that every media outlet had afford to take pride in a community whom resorted to things inimical to the law and established norms; but does it mean one should get contented in their long term repression? afterwards despite band aid relief and rehabilitation? Without even developing and making long term changes? Well, the quote earlier had stated that "mind depends on the matter", then therefore that matter should be susceptible to change- so should be the individual, the community, the nation has to adapt, adjust, make measures in pursuit of preserving and advancement of its own kind. The Filipino spirit may somehow remained strong but if incapable of advancement it will remain forever stunted as it was in the past.
However, if Ideas makes the Idealist real, then where did that person took those so-called ideas? From imagination? From its own barren mindset? It's all but strange that people like that person afford to oppose how visible things around constitutes ideas and putting it into action, that one has to analyze how things happen and had it examined further such as through experimentation. The quest for immortality nor transforming things into gold isn't just through spellbooks and stuff, but requires things that should be taken, or sorry to say so; it has to depend on a matter, on the reality in seeking consciousness prior to making certain changes.
Just like one quote made by the Burmese Revolutionary Council. As it says:
"the flux of his mind depends on his aggregate of matter; his mind cannot exist without this aggregate of matter on which it must continually depend;
while the mind, dependent as it is on matter, is not a material principle, having no stuff or substance, is nevertheless a living reality; mind is the state of consciousness as a whole;
mind which is sentient and matter which is not are two different principles of nature and they meet in man in a continuing state of flux."
Thus, contrary to what the kid whom trying to profess himself as an idealist, then he had forgotten that the ideas that made himself real had to depend on the matter his senses had brought and make what comes from his mind; in a way prehistoric man, after seeing thunder struck into a tree that brought fire, had to seek other means to create something that can brought heat for his body such as making friction out of wood or stone.
So is in seeing the metamporphosis of any other creature, such as a butterfly, or a hatching of a bird from its egg; that somehow made people who had sought repressive policies, and yearning for changes, giving an idea for a national regneration, a national metamorphosis.
On the other hand, in reading the quote "The future belongs to dare the impossible", it may sound easier for an individual to make an impossible one possible for that person alone; that individuals whom became millionaires had spent time working and saving according to their official biographies, but obviously, these people had to win acquaintances closer, if not friends in order to win that so-called impossible! Such distortion of the said quote, bannered by daydreaming individuals spending time playing games and picking fantasies guised as ideas is all but a mockery of those whom aspiring for an advancement, such as putting an end to a centuries-old repression; knowing that as for this writer, daring the impossible has to deal with reality rather than a roly-poly of fantasies possibly doom to fail. People had to protest calling for wage increases and lowering down of cost of commodities despite its impossibility simply because contenting on low wages and seeing increasing prices, all despite saving and austerity measures, isn't enough to lessen the problem! The Bolshevik's "Peace, Land and Bread" had dealt much with the sufferings coming from the soldiers, peasants, and workers desiring those that are deemed impossible the way "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" being tried in the French during the Revolution; yes, those are deemed impossible yet different from those who wanted rocketships, supersonic jets, pseudo-classical, if not modern edifices a la Burma or Nazi Germany yet aloof in dealing real domestic issues in a third world country such as unemployment, hunger, and poverty; or let's just say they are too "utopian" to vent something other than appealing to the people.
So are those who had dreamed and said much of self reliance, of dreaming an industrialized, self sufficient society; and yet consistently bannering the need for foreign capital is even a mockery of daring the impossible and the idea they ought to convey much; and they afford to oppose those of Hitler and Stalin, they praised those who are socially conservative yet using their conservatism to justify their neoliberal nonsense. Pinochet and Thatcher everyone? Like the former two, the latter had bannered patriotism, progress, and stability yet being undermined as they become asswipes of international capital.
So was describing the raped spirit of the Filipino as "waterpoof." Sorry to those who may ought to offend, but since institutions and concerned individuals take pride in having the Filipino race can withstand the rain and heat, is that enough? Corrupt officials and certain private personages had squander people's money for their personal benefit while afford to brag a race that can withstand the wind, heat and storm?
Yes,the Filipino's spirit can withstand for a moment of time, but does not mean they should remain themselves as victims waiting for aid and forcing to content on the so-called "benevolence" of corrupt officials and pseudo-idealistic personages and groups. The incident made by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng last 2009 had been used as a pre-election nonsense by politicians responding the emotions of the victims in pursuit of seeking votes; while those at Tacloban, ravaged by Yolanda, desperate for food, had resorted to attacking malls and groceries searching not just food but things to expropriate- or what the media said much: Looting.
Right was Ninotchka Rosca to criticize the media's bastardization of the Filipino as a resilient being, whose spirit as waterproof, yet not knowing that the Filipino, with all the events happened, also able to transform from its tragedy than letting themselves content in the nonsense what its own system enjoyed in it. As according to her writeup being shown at Yahoo:
"Across oceans and throughout the five continents of this Earth, we carry the tales of our old heroes and muses, our elementals, who confront, in each re-telling, tests of strength and spirit.
Some break, like Mariang Makiling who hides in a thousand-year hibernation; others metamorphose, like Bernardo Carpio who becomes a pillar of stone stopping cliffs from caving in on his village.
We may not remember their old names – names being the first to be erased under colonialism – but we remember how they were and how we are supposed to be: metamorphic.
What have we become after Yolanda?
These two legends represent the twin possibilities for the Filipinos’ metamorphosis. Both are inexplicable outside of the local paradigm. Just as what we’re watching now in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda seems inexplicable.
Who can fathom what drives a woman to open body bags of putrefying corpses in search of a husband, a son, a daughter? At the end of a gaze that has lingered over a hundred dead faces, what is she now?
Who can measure the rage of the peaceable man breaking through the walls of groceries, warehouses, shopping malls? And having pierced both law and walls of Authority, what is he now?"
Sorry to say, but to sum it all, the system had exploited, raped the Filipino as a resilient being, not knowinh that they are susceptible to change, that the peaceful dwellers of Tacloban becomes a raging mob expropriating things in pursuit of survival. Yes, the Filipino can withstand the rain and heat, but as time goes by, it has to react and give way to certain changes in its own community, knowing that should he or she had content with the flood, earthquake, and landslide? There are more ideas people had offered such as those of preparedness, yet the system quite aloof at those while spending its budget on relief efforts, leaving the rehabilitation efforts on the hands of big private enterprise that rather negates its objectives in favor of commercialization.
Anyways, good to hear the efforts, seeing how these people trying to survive, that every media outlet had afford to take pride in a community whom resorted to things inimical to the law and established norms; but does it mean one should get contented in their long term repression? afterwards despite band aid relief and rehabilitation? Without even developing and making long term changes? Well, the quote earlier had stated that "mind depends on the matter", then therefore that matter should be susceptible to change- so should be the individual, the community, the nation has to adapt, adjust, make measures in pursuit of preserving and advancement of its own kind. The Filipino spirit may somehow remained strong but if incapable of advancement it will remain forever stunted as it was in the past.
Looking at the aspirations of a continuing past,
Trying to revive the lost Asian spirit
Well, it takes days for this writer to write about this, thinking and recalling prior to assessing what he had read those times. In fact, in reading those quotes bannered by that so-called thinker, he seemed confused the way he is young yet trying to understand what he had read; or perhaps he simply read, munching words, and voila! An idea trying to pass as his own, in parallel with Marx, Mussolini, Rand, pr any other thinker whom trying to justify revolution, social change, or preserving order.
Or let's just say, he as a person of the third world trying to be inspired both by those works and his usual interest of videogames and worldly stuff; that somehow made himself create a hodge podge of thoughts yet failed to expand nor understand. Yes, it is quite difficult for this writer to think of what he conveys as a thinker, especially that he insist much Idealism over Reality as the driving force of mankind to steer certain changes, or let's just say trying to imitate like Marx's and Engels's views on 19th centry developments in Europe and America, mostly at the expense of the laboring class made to create an antithesis to the prevailing order given by their ruling systems- England with its profit-oriented gentries, Germany with its traditionalist-minded Junkers, and the like that represses the dispossessed majority in pursuit of development.
That somehow being studied further by its successors like Lenin, Luxembourg, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, and others whom still seeing the present order tries to unleash its age old repression. People had time and again depend on the reality, not just what being taught in their respective institutions and mere thinking as the basis of their revolutionary motives; Journalists like Ulrike Meinhof had sought the repression made the remains of the old ruling class in Germany that made her compel to join with armed individuals like Andreas Baader, took arms and created a series of actions that would say inflict pain on the order that represses its own subjects. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" as the old saying goes.
Personally, right was the idea made by the Burmese Revolutionary Council decades ago, in which this writer had supposed to write about and yet instead quoting some passages in today's writeup of his. But in the other hand, the idea itself seems to primarily made to justify their control than to uplift and modernise the Burmese spirit; knowing that they had failed to uplift the Burmese people regardless of their effort yet underestimates the power of their citizens. Southeast Asia back then tends to create new set of ideas rooted from realities not just age old thought, that one has to use Marx and Buddha to create something that back then as Revolutionary. Even Sœkarno had to expand Pancasila with his NaSaKom (Nationalism, God, Communism) in a view that Indonesia as a working class state also rooted in spirituality and national consciousness enshrined in the Pancasila; with emphasis on social justice and independence in which the west had to oppose for the sake of protecting their interests.
But, as for the Burmese attempt, its leader Ne Win and his successors rather used a hodge podge of left-wing, Buddhist, and Nationalist rhetoric to consolidate their existence rather than those of the nation; that despite parroting words like freedom and justice they afford to take dissidents into prison such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo; that they carried some "socialist experiments" yet failed due to mismanagement amongst officials whom supposedly undertake their obligations as "socialists"; as compared to the Singaporean model, originally concieved as Socialist, has to maintain first existing but good ones and create new foundations to support those are existing; especially that Singapore, in its earlier days had to survive as a young nation. Lee Kwan Yew back then was as same as the young Mandela's while Ne Win as Mugabe's, all knowing that the South East Asian example back then was also a part of a greater struggle in the third world, thus having intersections with those from Africa and Latin America.
That obviously, as radically different from those of today. People nowadays may describe that the earlier examples made by Sœkarno, the aspirations invoked by Recto and Pridi, would resort to failure simply because it is "utopian" compared to the so-called pragmatic efforts of Sœharto, Sarit Thanarat, even Lee kwan Yew, and others whom depending on foreign aid as part of National development. But, to think that if the aspirations of Pridi and Recto are "Utopian" in today's standards, then how come unemployment continues to rise so was the peasant issue of not having their land be redistributed from the landlords? For Recto, the need for Industrialization was and is based on seeing the Philippines wholly dependent on Foreign imports that killed small and medium scale enterprises; that until today, despite having assembly line facilities and import-export processing zones failed to consider the Philippines as industrialized, or let's just say there are no efforts to create a steel nail or Steel grider for those from Taiwan or mainland China are cheaper; the present day aspirations and programs presented by Thaksin Shinawatra during his Prime Ministership, prior to being accused of corruption and ouster years ago, are no match to the aspirations and programs presented by Pridi Banomyong that were deemed Socialist in the eyes of the Consevative-minded nobility (especially with their refusal on agrarian reform and nationalization) , of course, he had been resigned and replaced by rivals trying to make Thailand dependent on foreign assistance and under the power of both nobles and the military. And Singapore during the early days of Lee Kwan Yew had to focus on domestic-based National Development despite its limitations, and obviously they have the manpower both brain and brawn to develop first as theirs in preparation for opening to foreign investment during the latter decades of his rule.
This writer may somehow felt convincing way back then that devloping countries had hope thanks to those who had kept the spirit of patriotism alive and maing it a guide in a revolutionary way; and knowing that these people had to depend on existing tools, on the masses themselves in spearheading certain changes needed for a growing and developing society, different from mere number of structures being built, whose main purpose is to brag than to improve living standards the third world needs to focus with.
The Burmese experience, so was those of other countries had insist much that theirs as coming prosperous yet in actual failed to achieve. And contrary to their Marx-and-Bhudda laced philosophy of basing from realities, they rather emphasise much their ambitious idealism; yes, that idealism that isn't even realistic after all (like the one who afford to say that his ideas make him real) as it thoroughly looks in its past. The failure to rehabilitate cyclone-striken areas, of bringing justice to the minorities, while emphasising thoroughly the bravado of the armed forces like the era of Bayinnaung are examples of the unseriousness of the Burmese rulers in "filling its citizens stomachs" that made its citizens listen to what they described as a "sky-full of lies."
So was Cambodia during the era of Pol Pot. The idealism of the Khmer Rouge, despite presenting itself as "Communist", had end rather distorted despite trying to create a revolutionary order. Marx once said of a "Barracks-type communism" espoused by the nihilist Nechayev. The crude implementation of the idea itself brought failure despite building and improving new and existing infrastructure over Cambodia, not mentioning that they (the Khmer Rouge) been taking pride in skipping a transition, substituting vulgar idealism for a degree of common sense such as having intellectuals and city dwellers serve the Revolution the way what Red China and Juche Korea did in its era of reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Personally, this writer sought how Cambodia during Pol Pot as a hodge podge of ideas tried yet failed to realize as a self-proclaimed "Communist society" as evidenced by its atrocities against intellectuals and its trying hard grasp of Marxism-Leninism; but Cambodia's model of a "Communist society", are rather contrary to what they learned from Marx, Lenin, or even Mao, instead all but inspired by the ancient Angkor Empire that brought Angkor Wat and given a socialist garb by imitating those from China during the Cultural Revolution, tried much to present itself as a utopia where a rice planter, or a group of rice planters owns the country itself. It is quite amazing though to see the efforts in restructuring the society, of making a self reliant one deeply based on agriculture and artisan way of industry- trying to stress the value of the people, rather than machines espoused by Capitalism as the makers of history.
Or let's just say, he as a person of the third world trying to be inspired both by those works and his usual interest of videogames and worldly stuff; that somehow made himself create a hodge podge of thoughts yet failed to expand nor understand. Yes, it is quite difficult for this writer to think of what he conveys as a thinker, especially that he insist much Idealism over Reality as the driving force of mankind to steer certain changes, or let's just say trying to imitate like Marx's and Engels's views on 19th centry developments in Europe and America, mostly at the expense of the laboring class made to create an antithesis to the prevailing order given by their ruling systems- England with its profit-oriented gentries, Germany with its traditionalist-minded Junkers, and the like that represses the dispossessed majority in pursuit of development.
That somehow being studied further by its successors like Lenin, Luxembourg, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, and others whom still seeing the present order tries to unleash its age old repression. People had time and again depend on the reality, not just what being taught in their respective institutions and mere thinking as the basis of their revolutionary motives; Journalists like Ulrike Meinhof had sought the repression made the remains of the old ruling class in Germany that made her compel to join with armed individuals like Andreas Baader, took arms and created a series of actions that would say inflict pain on the order that represses its own subjects. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" as the old saying goes.
Personally, right was the idea made by the Burmese Revolutionary Council decades ago, in which this writer had supposed to write about and yet instead quoting some passages in today's writeup of his. But in the other hand, the idea itself seems to primarily made to justify their control than to uplift and modernise the Burmese spirit; knowing that they had failed to uplift the Burmese people regardless of their effort yet underestimates the power of their citizens. Southeast Asia back then tends to create new set of ideas rooted from realities not just age old thought, that one has to use Marx and Buddha to create something that back then as Revolutionary. Even Sœkarno had to expand Pancasila with his NaSaKom (Nationalism, God, Communism) in a view that Indonesia as a working class state also rooted in spirituality and national consciousness enshrined in the Pancasila; with emphasis on social justice and independence in which the west had to oppose for the sake of protecting their interests.
But, as for the Burmese attempt, its leader Ne Win and his successors rather used a hodge podge of left-wing, Buddhist, and Nationalist rhetoric to consolidate their existence rather than those of the nation; that despite parroting words like freedom and justice they afford to take dissidents into prison such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo; that they carried some "socialist experiments" yet failed due to mismanagement amongst officials whom supposedly undertake their obligations as "socialists"; as compared to the Singaporean model, originally concieved as Socialist, has to maintain first existing but good ones and create new foundations to support those are existing; especially that Singapore, in its earlier days had to survive as a young nation. Lee Kwan Yew back then was as same as the young Mandela's while Ne Win as Mugabe's, all knowing that the South East Asian example back then was also a part of a greater struggle in the third world, thus having intersections with those from Africa and Latin America.
That obviously, as radically different from those of today. People nowadays may describe that the earlier examples made by Sœkarno, the aspirations invoked by Recto and Pridi, would resort to failure simply because it is "utopian" compared to the so-called pragmatic efforts of Sœharto, Sarit Thanarat, even Lee kwan Yew, and others whom depending on foreign aid as part of National development. But, to think that if the aspirations of Pridi and Recto are "Utopian" in today's standards, then how come unemployment continues to rise so was the peasant issue of not having their land be redistributed from the landlords? For Recto, the need for Industrialization was and is based on seeing the Philippines wholly dependent on Foreign imports that killed small and medium scale enterprises; that until today, despite having assembly line facilities and import-export processing zones failed to consider the Philippines as industrialized, or let's just say there are no efforts to create a steel nail or Steel grider for those from Taiwan or mainland China are cheaper; the present day aspirations and programs presented by Thaksin Shinawatra during his Prime Ministership, prior to being accused of corruption and ouster years ago, are no match to the aspirations and programs presented by Pridi Banomyong that were deemed Socialist in the eyes of the Consevative-minded nobility (especially with their refusal on agrarian reform and nationalization) , of course, he had been resigned and replaced by rivals trying to make Thailand dependent on foreign assistance and under the power of both nobles and the military. And Singapore during the early days of Lee Kwan Yew had to focus on domestic-based National Development despite its limitations, and obviously they have the manpower both brain and brawn to develop first as theirs in preparation for opening to foreign investment during the latter decades of his rule.
This writer may somehow felt convincing way back then that devloping countries had hope thanks to those who had kept the spirit of patriotism alive and maing it a guide in a revolutionary way; and knowing that these people had to depend on existing tools, on the masses themselves in spearheading certain changes needed for a growing and developing society, different from mere number of structures being built, whose main purpose is to brag than to improve living standards the third world needs to focus with.
The Burmese experience, so was those of other countries had insist much that theirs as coming prosperous yet in actual failed to achieve. And contrary to their Marx-and-Bhudda laced philosophy of basing from realities, they rather emphasise much their ambitious idealism; yes, that idealism that isn't even realistic after all (like the one who afford to say that his ideas make him real) as it thoroughly looks in its past. The failure to rehabilitate cyclone-striken areas, of bringing justice to the minorities, while emphasising thoroughly the bravado of the armed forces like the era of Bayinnaung are examples of the unseriousness of the Burmese rulers in "filling its citizens stomachs" that made its citizens listen to what they described as a "sky-full of lies."
So was Cambodia during the era of Pol Pot. The idealism of the Khmer Rouge, despite presenting itself as "Communist", had end rather distorted despite trying to create a revolutionary order. Marx once said of a "Barracks-type communism" espoused by the nihilist Nechayev. The crude implementation of the idea itself brought failure despite building and improving new and existing infrastructure over Cambodia, not mentioning that they (the Khmer Rouge) been taking pride in skipping a transition, substituting vulgar idealism for a degree of common sense such as having intellectuals and city dwellers serve the Revolution the way what Red China and Juche Korea did in its era of reconstruction and rehabilitation.
Personally, this writer sought how Cambodia during Pol Pot as a hodge podge of ideas tried yet failed to realize as a self-proclaimed "Communist society" as evidenced by its atrocities against intellectuals and its trying hard grasp of Marxism-Leninism; but Cambodia's model of a "Communist society", are rather contrary to what they learned from Marx, Lenin, or even Mao, instead all but inspired by the ancient Angkor Empire that brought Angkor Wat and given a socialist garb by imitating those from China during the Cultural Revolution, tried much to present itself as a utopia where a rice planter, or a group of rice planters owns the country itself. It is quite amazing though to see the efforts in restructuring the society, of making a self reliant one deeply based on agriculture and artisan way of industry- trying to stress the value of the people, rather than machines espoused by Capitalism as the makers of history.
And like Burma, as well as other Indo-Chinese inspired countries would say that one has to create an idea that appeals much to the people, no matter how bastardised the idea is such as using socialism or communism or any kind of idea simply just to create a different Cambodia greater than the Angkor and its succeeding periods. While Burma of Ne Win had somehow tried to use Socialist rhetoric and making it compatible with buddhism; Pol Pot had rather imitate much of Chinese model, putting some "patriotism" like the ancient Angkor empire, and create a bastardised, vulgar version of a foreign model, that again despite its effort to revive his nation from being destroyed during the war against Lon Nol had rather failed due to its overzealous adherents (and its antiintellectualism) and skipping the long transition period (as according to the late Chou Enlai), as if they can reach Communism. Yes, Right was Marx about the danger he had sought on how people had insist their utopia rather than looking at reality as basis of their
Anyways, these countries this writer had took examples of were again, trying to convey that the Southeast asia of the past, mostly freed from colonialism if not domestic oppression tries to create their path for social development. Ideally would say that it seemed good to see any country, stressing its own independence, tries to uplift and revive its own National spirit; that somehow made others had afford to create ideas, let's just say vulgar ones concocted from their mindsets and books, if not too inspired by computer games or any other kind of daydream as the basis of their so-called "Aspiration", "Utopia", or any other pseudo-modern dream with people capable of facing the impossible in a snap; or even joining the bandwagon showcasing one's spirit as just enduring by the ruling order yet failed to meet the demand of change from its own subjects.
Anyways, these countries this writer had took examples of were again, trying to convey that the Southeast asia of the past, mostly freed from colonialism if not domestic oppression tries to create their path for social development. Ideally would say that it seemed good to see any country, stressing its own independence, tries to uplift and revive its own National spirit; that somehow made others had afford to create ideas, let's just say vulgar ones concocted from their mindsets and books, if not too inspired by computer games or any other kind of daydream as the basis of their so-called "Aspiration", "Utopia", or any other pseudo-modern dream with people capable of facing the impossible in a snap; or even joining the bandwagon showcasing one's spirit as just enduring by the ruling order yet failed to meet the demand of change from its own subjects.
But on the other hand, in revisiting such aspirations of the past, most of which were based on then existing realities, perhaps one has to make a new type of it, trying to revive a long lost forgotten spirit in a fast changing world.
That's all for now,
Thank you