"In commemoration of Bonifacio's Day"

In commemoration of Bonifacio's Day

People are now celebrating a day of a Militant, Revolutionary tradition and valor of the Filipino youth and of the masses. As from the start, people are greatly inspired by the valor given by Gat Andres Bonifacio and those who fought under the Katipunan whose struggle for National Liberation and Democracy continues until today.

For today is the 148th birth anniversary of this great hero of the masses who is Gat Andres Bonifacio. From his poor upbringings to being a middle-class intellectual yet still immersed with the masses, Andres Bonifacio led the Katipunan and mobilized the masses for the 1896 Philippine Revolution. It was Bonifcio who further spark the fires of armed struggle all against the Spanish colonizer and slanderers of his race.

It is Bonifacio also who became a role model for the Militant and Revolutionary traditions of the Filipino youth and masses as the standard bearer of Nationalism and Democracy, post-war groups such as Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism, Kabataang Makabayan were greatly inspired by his; that the latter was even founded in the same date as his births, 1964; carrying a mission to advance the Militant, Patriotic and Revolutionary traditions of 1896.

And with continuing the Revolutionary tradition meant facing risks in midst of an oppressive system that continues to prevail throughout the years all despite opposition from ruling classes that resulted to such sacrifices all in pursuit of advancing the struggle. That, from the First Quarter Storm of the 1970s, integration with the laboring people, to the oppressive Martial Law and its succeeding regimes the struggle for genuine Nationalism and Democracy continues to prevail-that the system, regardless of the facade of change remained fundamentally unchanged, making it the cause of poverty, unemployment, loss of arable land, illiteracy, rising of mortality rate and human rights abuses; and the unfinished revolution ought to end this to achieve genuine Freedom, Justice and Democracy.

It should be the primary role of the masses, especially the youth to continue the aspirations Andres Bonifacio and other heroes ought to say upon to everyone, the Revolution isn't been finished yet, that as the stooges of Imperialism, especially those of Bureaucrat Capitalists and Feudalists prevail it should be destroyed as part of advancing a progressive society. 

Today, the need for Patriotic, Progressive, and Popular education and culture; advancement of women's rights; genuine agrarian reform and domestic-based Industrialization; independent foreign policy based on mutual respect; and even progressive fiscal social policy, being examples of what the people need of still fell on deaf ears of the ruling class while Its stooges chanted massive opening to foreign trade and acquisition of assets and even clothed with a sheet of Democracy and dubbed it as will of the people. 

And if the ruling class, despite parroting populist sentiment such as today, yet willing to sell its country to Imperialism as its stooges, describing themselves as idealists wanted, Never! it is not the will of the people to sell its country to vested interests!

As efforts to continue the unfinished Revolution made by Bonifacio be derailed by these stooges, puppets, moochers to Imperialism and the rotten order, the oppressed masses, all suffered by hunger, oppression and system-imposed ignorance towards social realities will remain steadfast to continue to fulfill the goals of the unfinished Revolution.

That, from the mountains, fields, towns, cities all over the archipelago the masses ought to emancipate the Philippines from the wrath what the system prevailed of. That, in midst of the worsening socio-economic crisis, more and more will continue to oppose and fight against the sytem and to advance a society that everyone get a fair share in its progress. More and more are willing to rise from the martyrs who fought against injustice and advancing a society that is Progressive, Just and Prosperous.

Again, in this day of struggle, bid thee honour to a man who inspired and propelled further the struggle-that continues moving until today and advancing.

Why the occupiers in wall street is worth fighting...

Why the occupiers in wall street is worth fighting...

by Katleah Iskre Ulrike

In midst of the global financial crisis, of people going to banks and get their hard earned savings, of taxes that end up benefiting to bigger entities, of seeing Obama's stint of demonizing the wealthy and propaganda patiches such as "restructuring the economy", it is worth likely to say that the people are having mistrust both towards the banks and of the bureaucracy, faux-planning and justifications of laissez faire for monopolism, all encroachments on human freedom and the will to change the society progressively against the systems whose rottness creates hindrance to social growth.

One capitalist said to everyone that Capitalism is worth fighting for, venting message that the ideology itself is the "greatest engine of material prosperity in human history, the fount of civilization, peace, and modernity", but whose civilization, prosperity, peace, modernity that person speaks of? Is it the moochers in rags, or the moochers in coats and ties ranting shit in the stock market? The slaves, as they worked overtime for less pay seemingly had become conscienced in regards to their actions as toilers of machine and earth and upbringers of modernity, prosperity and civilization to everyone; but again who really benefited from that Capitalism despite modern day gadgetry and facades of modernity and illusions of future in all spheres?

In fact, been working for long despite living in a well to do family, I am supposed to be living in pleasure but rather not to get contented in slacking and instead having volunteer work not for the sake of allowances but to mold my character as an individual in an institution called "life" and "reality." Yet as suspect, not all middle class individuals give up something in pursuit of attaining higher consciousness as they themselves rather get contented in an ordinary cycle what the system insisted and offered to everyone; that Capitalism itself, being "fount of civilization and modernity" offered things to silence themselves like soma to stop complaining-as evidenced to those who drink booze to silence themselves and think nothing in regards to personal problems.

Indeed, that as expected many would regard Capitalism as a "Dirty word" out of its actions such as profiteering, exploitation and corruption despite Modernity and Civilization started in the 19th century; that Wall Street giants, Robber Barons, Landlords live in legalized thievery, with state's gifts of priviledge such as barrierless trade and less taxes for their very own pleasure. Anthony Gregory even acknowleged that systems champion Capitalism as "they produce devices of murder for the state." or rather say for themselves in pursuit of maintaining the status quo of free trade, less or no taxes, and perhaps bigger benefits giants ought to scramble upon like those of 19th Century trusts in the United States and Europe. Such desirous interests would somehow fuel discontent on the other especially those who endure the rage of getting bombarded, getting misled, getting tired of oppression in all spheres what today's system set upon contrary to people's will.

Once, an Anarchist friend simply said to the Ayn Rand fanatics that the pharmacy their idol's family owned had been confiscated by the Bolsheviks, and  even they themselves using public roads, bridges, registering their names and everything whatsoever the state insist of, why not also rant over against it? Calling for total privatization of the societies and making roads similar to those of tollways (of paying before you pass as most tend to complain in) to stop their rant against the state who interferes their privacy, sorry to say but the writer is somehow against the state, but how come they themselves against the state for what? For the sake of everyone's desire of equality, freedom and justice? Or just mere individual's desire starting from not interfering in their lives such as getting off from someone else's lawn?

Social Cooperation? Organized Chaos.

Once, Mises said that:

 "A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society."

Nice to hear what Mises said as a Capitalist, but on the other hand, which is social cooperation and disintegration of society nowadays? And which society pertains to? Is it the masses, the middle class, or the Elitists who controlled every sphere in the society? I do agree on what Social Cooperation is, but does it include oppression, exploitation? Might as well consider instead the latter that the society itself, because of repression prevailing became the cause of disintegration, noticing that massive unemployment, backward development, repressive rule and the like are causes enough to create discontent, hence calling for the dismantlement of the old society in favor of a new one. After all, Social Cooperation under Capitalism isn't Social Cooperation but dictation and contentment-noticing that social systems insist people be contented on things rather than advancing, that in order to survive ought to join the flow of what is being dictated upon to-that everything is a trend to follow and be dubbed thee as they're cooperating", worse, it is itself an organized chaos.

 That even makes sense that in midst of alleged prosperity, modernity, behind these are foolishness and stupidity instilled upon to the vast majority. That:

 "First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish." 

 For sure institutions supporting the order are quite thinking that it is "natural" to see people being "gone to the flow" as themselves benefited from it-that made Mises think that it is "Social Cooperation" itself, but to those who faced getting less wages, hunger, unemployment, it would be likely to be described as an "Organized Chaos" given that the order itself instituted something that would create disgust amongst the have not. After all, to the Elite, to the Oligarch, it is their conception of Democracy handed over from the Slave Owners such as Thomas Jefferson.

Is "Technology" and "Consumer Goods" Capitalism?

If people likely to say that things this and that are made out of Capitalism, especially clothes, gadgetry, even the computer used in this blog, are narrow minded not noticing who created those things from the start; they would say that the Capitalist did it, but does it include the Workers who really worked hard for it? They are the ones even laid off and replaced by another, or even replaced by machines that would generate more profits from it especially from its surpluses exceeding from an average supply to be made upon; labor indeed creates wealth and capital, but in reality labor are being discarded in favor of an easy one-that once made the Luddites gone angry against the machine and destroyed it, and yet more workers are employed to man machinery, but do they got benefits for working in long hours in order to make batches of cloth, clothes, gadgetry, processed foods and the like? Lucky if there's someone acting like William Hesketh Lever, who, in lieu of salaries be given to the workers in kind such as housing, food and amenities, but as of this day few from that class ever acted as a "messiah" to the working class-and the working class rather act as messiahs for themselves to counter repression against a system detrimental to their development. They may speak that these are made out of Capitalism, clothes, gadgetry, same as unemployment and misery especially that hoarding, price increases, prevail in a time of crisis and uncontrolled instances.

And if still insisted, rather shows the narrow mindedness worse than whom are they speaking against. It's like wanting to deprive someone of clothing and rights if that's the case, yes most of it were branded, most of it were sold dear, but despite these who really made those products from the start? How come some are forced to strike as they had low wages and less benefits despite making those clothes, gadgetry and the like? Everyone mourned Steve Jobs's death but few noticed deaths of workers in a factory making IPods in China; more had afford to buy and use IPods including activists, and by playing antisystem music might as well become weapons against them. Lenin, for instance even told that "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." That also meant being against Capitalism aren't limited to those who do DIY, there are those who utilize things what is currently sought to turn as weapons against it. Why there are hackers and online protesters? Why there are those who tend to use modern gadgetry for alternative uses? they utilize everything. And according to history, an African tribe, despite using chants and spells, disdain for "modern" lifestyle used iron axes in lieu of their stone axes for their own purpose, but does it mean they adapt capitalism? Well, it is the people and not things who decide, it is the people who had the will to use things and be reinterpreted as such and not vice versa as what most ought to think upon; it's like does it mean using the Internet, using IPod, wearing clothes and the like coming from Capitalism makes a person a Capitalist? What a narrow minded idea then that technology, consumer goods are Capitalism, not noticing that behind all these are those are having less wages, less benefits, liable to be fired, yet having the knowledge of creating this and that that allegedly made an individual a Capitalist! 

Becoming "Prometheuses", "Spartacuses", "Nat Tylers"...

One writeup even made this writer digging through that "If Marx's buddy Engels hadn't been a factory manager, he would have lacked the leisure time needed to help concoct their destructive philosophy" as stated. And seems that person who made that quote is too technical to think about it-how come Babeuf, a lawyer had much time writing that served as what Marx's and Engels's did? How come Blanqui, an intellectual devoted his time in revolutionary activity and calling it as a profession? The problem of those who are too technical to think didn't notice that those with good backgrounds, yet rebellious, are like Prometheus who stole fire and end up chained and its liver eaten by a bird of prey! It is their will to mold themselves as working class than getting contented in their lives for nothing, speaking of contentment the system insists contentment, rather than change as what everyone suspect; that perhaps include some who tend to keep workers well enough by giving in kind the way William Hesketh Lever did in Port Sunlight and Robert Owen in his factories in England during the 19th century. The latter two had good backgrounds, yet concoct something that would counter what are they of.

After all, few of the elite are acting like Prometheus and perhaps rebellious deities whilst some of the middle class, affected by the crisis are becoming Spartacuses and Nat Tylers supporting the vast mass of the poor just like in Wall Street and in London. The crisis itself made by the repressive policies and massive discontent had likely to pull the pillars of that damned "Civilization" of the Elitists, Oligarchs down in favor of creating a new one. That the occupy movements and mass actions set upon to, including the right to bear arms against the system.

For sure there would be some would say that the events like those from the Occupy movement made things grow worse, but again as history stated much that it is entirely a history of class struggles, of rise and fall of systems, that perhaps the current system tries to keep itself in order to prevent from falling down. One fanatic even said that:

"It is simply a fact that capitalism, even hampered by the state, has dragged most of the world out of the pitiful poverty that characterized all of human existence for millennia." 

If so, then it is Capitalism itself also put Nations also into pitiful poverty as evidenced in the underdeveloped and developing Nations of the world trying to be self-reliant and sufficient yet remained backward and dependent on foreign imports in exchange fore reliant in an agricultural background, that wars became policies to insist what made them parasitically beneficial to those who initiate it. Is the Third World became progressive as it dragged off from poverty through credit? Nope. So are those who are affected by the crisis that cost their savings, that the taxes are being allocated to the banks instead of services just like last 2010. These examples perhaps made discontent and rebellion justifiable despite system's attempts to spoil the people with corporate philanthropy, technology, and other varieties deemed to be called as public relations.

And if used, again are like ropes being sold to everyone and used to hang those who started it all.

"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.

"Never too Old"

"Never too Old"

When  this writer was in High School, he listened to the songs played by "White Power" bands in the internet. And despite being left in inclination, the songs seemed to be radical enough in its tone and words unless if you dig deeper and know its very meaning as a racist theme speaking about racial consciousness, identity, and survival. 

One of which is the song entitled Never too Old by Nemesis.

And despite his political views, he likes the song much since it all reminds of listening to the bands comparing to my classmates who listened much to mainstream music that was full of novelty and dance; and well, I am different from these people whom they used to think of me as an underdog, liable to be bullied yet still resisting although with tears flowing sometimes.

But then, despite listening to the song made by a Neo-Nazi band, whether by Nemesis or what, it somehow made me think that the song speaks of a social rather than racial struggle, of resistance against the system as it direct much to those who are aloof, apathetic towards a struggle; especially to those who are satisfied yet feeling the pangs of an imminent crisis affecting everyone in a rotten society.

After all, he is not a wingnut, but he likes the music enough to be revised.

...

I know what you are thinking when I look into your eyes!
I know what is really going on in your mind!
You think you are too old to carry on this fight-
You think you are too old to do what you know is right!

 Chorus:
You are never too old for this fight!
The people, the nation is depending on you!
Don’t run away and hide!
Come on now get back involved in the war for your family!
Come on now get back involved join the fight with me!

You see protests, you read issues yet you're in apathy
Going to school then go to work, then to bar before you sleep
Then you say "I don't care the issue for it doesn't affect me"
Yet you see the hungry masses for you saw it on TV

repeat Chorus

You say you have grown up Now you’ve got a family-
A brand new house, a good salary and a bonus every year!
But what’s the use in all these things, when you live your life on your knees?
What’s the use in all these things,when you’re nothing but a sheep?

 repeat Chorus

Prices are high, crisis are realized, rampant is the poverty
Yet you still contented to life as if nothing and as it is
Whilst your money, its value go down with expenses are now rising
Then you end up getting fired for you're old and you're nothing

 repeat Chorus

What are you gonna tell your kids as you face the poverty?
When they turn around and ask what you did for your country?
You can tell them you were a coward who hid behind his family!
You left the fighting to the real men- those from the PKP!

repeat Chorus (2x)

"Writer" Revisited

"Writer" Revisited

As Lopez criticized Marcos directly, so is Tucay.
Indeed they are both from U.P.

"Every normal person has the capacity to express his thoughts and feelings in consecutive speech if not in language that is touched in fire..."

These are the words writer and former University of the Philippines President Salvador Lopez said in his writeup "The making of a Writer". And it somehow showed the person having the will to vent what goes on no matter what it says whether in fire or not. These are also the words that may have correspond to today how case is justified regardless of narrow interpretations of others...

...Such as those of Marjohara Tucay and his opposition to America's policy regardless of being a Journalist; chanting, shouting anti-American slogans and carrying a statement in front of the audience and even Hillary Clinton during an interview. To others, somehow would justify his actions as voicing his sentiment as an individual, not much in a manner how an Iraqi threw a shoe on George Bush back then; while there are others who subjectively calling him "unethical" or unpleasant to hear his rants especially from a Journalist like him.

But still, despite all the criticisms, Tucay is a Journalist as what everyone, whether from U.P. or not sees of him. Writers can't be writers without expressing their idea through their craft, their art, that despite the so-called objectivity lies messages that putting extra fire to an existing one, that how come people would agree to an article about Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's arrest and detainment in St.Luke's Hostpital? Yes. others tend to become "Concerned" over her plight, whilst there are others who consistently agreeing to detain the former President, not in St. Lukes but to V.Luna, Veterans, or even Muntinlupa and Bagong Diwa; like Tucay, these people, although they are readers, are also expressing their ideas, emotions enough whether in frozen speech or a rant calling the former President a "Sonofabitch."

I simply tend to revisit Lopez's work and heed the writer's emotion that made him/her putting it to the pen no matter what comes along in the mind. And speaking of the mind "is primed for though in a variety of ways" as Lopez stated. It can't be out of mere Idealism as dreamers tried to insist; that through observing, conversing, reflecting and reviewing lies the materials of thought stocked and become words written or videos shown. In a way that a good Engineer or a Scientist would become better if it engage in direct production to gain information and analysis regarding their work as he/she endures, experience the labor of a common worker, same as the Journalist, the Artist, who make his/her thought fortified with realities with evidences, as they ought to make their craft well enough in propagating the gospel based on truth. Yet obviously the system tend to reduce, edit, or omit any kind of sentiment all in the name of "Objectivity" and "Correctedness" as everyone sees of; that Tucay ought to disregard it in favor of his beliefs and endure the criticisms.

But, the problem lies in how to be cautious as writers, full of bravado and willingness to vent out the truth in a courigable way, who think that the former two as hindrance to objectivism. 

Once in a discussion with Howie Severino, Tucay seemed to be given a "sermon" by Severino just because of his beliefs being vented despite of being a Journalist, that he insisted that Journalists are entitled to ask than to protest, and even took pride of himself as a person who covers events. Yes, Severino is right but isn't that negating Lopez's? Lopez was even a Journalist in the Philippine Collegian same as Tucay's, but his works justified enough his belief such as to vent his own belief the way Tucay did-just like "Literature and Society" and "The making of the Writer." Yes, there may be some ought to say that Lopez's work is an essay, but does it mean it is limited to essays and literary works? Not noticing that Journalism is also a literary work aiming for exposing truth for everyone-no matter how nasty it is, all despite limitations Severino insisted-in the guise of "ethics", "objectivity", and the like.

There are even critics supporting Severino as well, how wonder why these people, obviously apathetic ones tend to criticize Tucay without understanding it? Sadly to say but they are narrow minded just because they are contented persons with self-interest. As one of them said: 

"The best journalists that I have encountered in 23 years in journalism,[…]would not use a forum or presscon to shout slogans—not because they have no personal beliefs (we all do) but for very practical reasons: no one would invite us or allow us to gain access to any event where we can ask questions and gain information that the public needs to know. And if other “journalists” use those occasions not to gain information but instead push a political agenda or be disruptive it creates a cloud of doubt about the motivations about the motivations of other professionals.”" 

 That person speaking seemed to be taking pride at encountering Journalists, but at first, is a forum a place JUST to ask questions? Is voicing out beliefs prohibited? Seemed that in a guise of "objectivity" lies "subjectivity" as well. Subjectivity in a garb of rationality as we see like those of Ayn Rand and her fanatics venting out self-gratification and pleasure. They even afford to say to Tucay "Just don’t call yourself a journalist." yet obviously they aren't interested in those fora for they are "intelligent" enough to think about it. 

And since people tend to insist negatively about the events, yes, Tucay’s act is unbecoming of a journalist, but then at least he voiced his belief, emotion long enough than to limit its own by the barriers. Remembering that most professors tend to tell students to think out of the box meant also to act deviant in pursuit of justification of an idea such those of opposing foreign intervention including those of language that is touched in fire as what Lopez stated. Obviously, that made Sarah Raymundo said this regarding Severino:

"He even cites pragmatic reasons for discouraging journalists from activism. That protesting journalists might not get invited to the next important media event betrays Severino’s very own careerism and opportunism which he misrepresents as ethics for the younger generation of journalists."

If so, how come some writers are also activists and social critics? Saturnino "Satur" Ocampo is an activist but he's also a Journalist (writing business in Manila Times), same as Armando Malay and  Lopez himself; that Mark Twain also did a journalistic stint but his works became a tool for the anti-Imperialist sentiment especially those of his satire. How wonder why the system tend to limit expression, or worse, censor personal beliefs; why not Severino also tell it to opinion writers like Randy David? David is also a Journalist and a Social Democrat under BISIG, that his writeups in Inquirer also involved his beliefs. Same as the pro-Arroyo Cunanan in her "Political Tidbits" back then in the same paper as David's.

Or perhaps like those of the Tulfo brothers. Yes, they are being criticized nastily because of their rudeness especially those of their actions and its un-Journalistic tendencies as others tend to think of, but then some tend to look at them as those who expose much despite the vulgarity depicted both in print and in the TV screen. Yes, they expressed much with machismo as others tend as deviant from Journalism especially those that is envelopmental, and obviously envelopmental is detrimental to the goal that is exposing truth wholeheartedly and direct; so are the rackets and obviously un-Journalistic tendencies that put them into bad light. Yet, the lower class tend to look at them as strong enough to expose no matter comes along as what it expresses on TV or Radio; so are others who fell down and die because of their decision to express the truth hard the way they "hard-earned" it.

Well, the realities drive them to do so, as what others tend to think of as "Idealism." That in their constant practise of their craft lies results good enough as works, and others tend to think as profitable upon having their works in the broadsheet justifiable to get paid off by the management; that made me think that there are really some who tend to think Journalism as a profit-profession using the pen than of a devotion wherein idealism and reality be converged through its skill; that made Stalin think of them as "Engineers of the human soul" as we ought to see.

Former UP College of Mass Communications Dean Luis Teodoro even criticized the interview as well, as he said:

"What GMA-7 staged may have been a media event; it was certainly not a journalistic one. In these circumstances, Tucay had every right and indeed the responsibility not only to express himself, but also to demand some sanity in an alleged press conference. By assuming that it was a press conference, Tucay was being too charitable: a press conference that event wasn’t, which means that Severino had no business demanding compliance with the ethics and professional standards of journalism, violations of which GMA-7 could be more justifiably accused than student journalists, most of whom, in the University of the Philippines, for example, know better than to behave like fawning and simpering colonials."

Obviously, despite every television channel, newspaper or radio station voicing out their so-called objectivity it is simply trying to hide the reality that is being coerced by an elite as it tries to control mass communication turning it into a tool for escapism than of exposing truth and an initiative for action. Tucay, in voicing out his belief are simply based much on reality: how come the U.S. still intervening domestic affairs as evidenced by the Visiting Forces Agreement? Isn't it his right to voice out the reality far from the common? Isn't it also obvious that despite calling it un-journalistic it is still communication regardless of its vulgarity as what Lopez said? Severino might as well tell it to the Tulfos too!

Teodoro even voiced out his opinion especially in regards to the event about Hillary Clinton. I even think that yes, there's someone to put a real colour such those of protest against the unequal treaties between the Philippines and the U.S., but as Severino insisted what is his to Tucay, is what Teodoro said in the same critique:

"Apparently their idea of “objective” journalism is to stage and script what could have been a meaningful interview by planting in the audience brain-dead actors and actresses charged with asking the most asinine questions ever asked of anyone, in a too obvious attempt to shield Clinton from being asked the hard questions that journalists not only can ask, but should be asking."

Cheers for Professor Tolentino for justifying Tucay's right to voice out the reality.

And if Tucay did the same as what others did will Clinton answer it? or be end up being said "Please change the question" in lieu of what the former insisted while the latter answered questions about Pacquiao or whatsoever, playing safe for goddamn sake of publicity? It all reminds of UP Prexy Lopez himself being reprimanded by Marcos because of his beliefs during a discussion, or even one of the student leaders during the First Quarter Storm end up asked by Marcos if he's a Liberal in the middle of a discussion, simply because he's a Nacionalista! To others it may meant a vulgar move driven by apathy worse than what Tucay did in actual, it might as well hurting for a Journalist if the answer would be nothing but mere apathetic silence, being told to ask another question that would please a person like Mrs. Clinton, or be asked if he's a  subversive the way Marcos asked a student leader if he's a Liberal for he's a Nacionalista.

Anyway, I would even say that Tucay is objective enough to say directly that he's against the unequal treaties such as the VFA than those who are "scared" to ask directly about it and instead ask the most asinine questions that obviously far from the reason behind Clinton's visit to the Philippines. And although others tend to think his moves are un-journalistic just  like what Severino said, it is Tucay's right to be deviant despite being a Journalist. It is his freedom to express his own opinion as a citizen of this goddmaned "Democratic" society regardless of what he is same as the words beings said so rather than getting contented on what the status quo insisted on Journalists. If Severino and the rest of the apathetics insisted their very own ideas about their work, it may as well tell it to those who are yearning for justice for the victims of Maguindanao massacre if they also do the way Tucay did. Remember Cerge Remonde being thrown with bottle caps and a plastic filled with Pinakbet? Well, writing as a craft is hard enough despite having a mind full of ideas and proofs.

In fact, this writer is working different from his profession, engaging in marketing so to speak; yet this blog served as its desk in order for his craft to carry on with, but does not mean that the person who made this is not a Journalist since he didn't work in a paper yet he engaged in writing and camera work same as those in the media? Yes. Writing is hard no matter what mind and emotion wanted to flow its idea through the pen, or even the typewriter, keyboard but then that arduous task is a means of communicating with the world as a civilized human being. And despite the odds, of criticisms, it is simple to say that Journalism is Literature, and Literature is Communication. And as it vent out the nastiest truths, it expresses simply the nastiest of all the human experiences creatively, that would make readers or viewers entertain or even reflect on social issues such those of U.S. and of the Philippines; that the devotion being engaged though is a practise of his/her freedom to express its thought, opinion, belied, especially as he/she can in their work as part of the society.

After all,  Tucay was lucky enough to express beyond, or rather say deviant from the usual as he showed his thought against the unequal treaties, no matter what that sentiment is touched by fire by opposing U.S. policies through chanting against Clinton in front of the people. if the people afford to criticize, blame Tucay for his deed, why not as well criticize the system that made Tucay do so? Lopez was right in his word. He's expressing regardless of what he is..even with fire through his actions taken.

DEGENERATED DEVELOPMENT

DEGENERATED "DEVELOPMENT"

by Katleah Ulrike

 As the title indicates, this writeup is concerned much with the status of the nation, especially in socio-economic side and its problems involved in it. And despite difficulties involving insufficient historical, statistical, and other related documents as well as lack of personal experience and praxis, we will not conceal the so-called danger involved in addressing such a vast topic regarding this.

But then, As a starter, in order to determine prospects for socio-economic development, as well as a support for future plans in regards to government-related affairs in economics, it is absolutely essential to attempt to grasp linkages, interdependence of development process that affect social life, especially the mases, and in relation to that, we will endavour to examine some characteristics which seem to be “most critical” to analyze with, again to the fact that the writer/researcher tries its best to deal with the socio- economic affairs of this society.

 This work involves the criticism of statements, with sufficient facts to support the statement given, revisits to studies related to issues, as well as assessments in regards to the system and its socio-economic and cultural status-a means to set forth solution that is, long term and suitable to the present conditions as to evaluate some problems involved in it, allowing enough basis for eventual change.

 I

 The status of the nation, was and is, in a state of being stunted as well as experiencing much of its degeneration all despite the “reforms” being taken, as if like vitamins in order to make the system running. But then, instead of further change, it rather worsens the domestic situation-having a society backward and slowly advancing, as well as experiencing much degeneration all due to the system’s efforts in keeping the order of things, that entirely consists of remnants of the past that catered much to vested interests (oligarchs, plutocrats), all from economics, politics, culture and military affairs while the masses are greatly affected by the mess that they met such reforms and countermeasures with doubt and criticism.

True, to the extent that the country had an absolute, limited approach to self-development all despite the government's task, or rather say their propaganda  vented to the people. Both past's and present's "development" are emphasised much on remittances, trade liberalization, import dependency, and last 2010 elections, of election spending in order to keep the economy afloat and going; and yet it end up benefited by the few instead of the many, all despite the doleouts, infrastructures, countermeasures that seemingly a propaganda motif to appease the people. Self-development indeed is an arduous task to be taken upon, yet to the current system it is worthless-due to their acceptance of globalization as its policy, liberalization, privatization of assets, and other schemes that to theirs as developmental work.

And speaking of schemes, it somehow tried both its best and worst, just to improve the economy and alleviate people from poverty. The roads, bridges, programs resulted from Public-Private partnerships seemed to be "enough" to improve the way of life as the system think of, but then it end up worthless so to speak, since despite these so-called monumental contributions, oppressive and corrupt foundations prevail, and contributes much in the further deterioration of the society.

As according to the writeup "On the question of Semifeudalism" by Jose Maria Sison and Julieta de Lima, it said:

"The Philippine economy has been called many times-'Free   Enterprise','Market',' Mixed',' Developing', 'Dependent-Capitalist' and so on. But none of these is more precise than 'Semifeudal' in denoting the level of development of the productive forces and the relations of production, particularly the shift from the feudal economy of the 19th century under Spanish colonialism to the semifeudal economy of the 20th century under U.S. imperialism. Bourgeois economists adopt their own terminology to stress private ownership of the means of production, the commodity system or the primacy of the market and the demise of development under Capitalism."

Speaking of Semifeudalism,this kind of system prevailing in the Philippines is considered much a hindrance to genuine social and economic development, the Latifundia system of the Landlords gained much prominence, notoriety in the society to the fact that they had enough or more reasons to dominate the society economically, politically, and culturally from being elected officials to acquiring bigger stocks, shares and even the post of chief executive officer, yet still despite using Democratic means and Capitalist ideas, they kept the old order intact-when it comes to property, especially those of land, that comprises the Peasant question.

The Lopezes, Cojuangcos, Ayalas are considered enough to be examples of a Landlord-CEO, a Semifeudalist in a "Capitalist" garb who speaks of development yet retaining the Feudal tradition, why? The Lopezes' ABS-CBN boasts of modern equipment, new shows, talents, and has a lot of viewers, gaining profits from it; yet on the other side, they practise a system used back then by the ecomenderos to ensure cheap and docile labor, to the detriment and inadvantage of its workers-as evident from the workers being laid off instead of making them as regulars, especially those who workerd for 20 years as part of the staff, yet the Lopezes gained 2.27 billion in 2010 from 1.7 billion in 2009. Isn't it obvious that these profiteers, Landlord-CEOs done such obvious problems all for the sake fo cheap labor? Lucky enough that the Court of Appeals had upheld the right of television  “talents” to receive the same compensation and benefits as regular network employees. Overturning earlier decisions of the labor court. But then does it mean it eased out the earlier situation? There are some labor problems likely to be unearthed there, as cheap labor through contractualization, profiteering became policy of the said station. Or rather say trying hard to modernize Feudalism in the Philippines using Capitalist concepts as support? What kind of development for the nation these Oligarchs did they achieve? Is it for the people, or for the system?

After all, it is not just about the Lopezes, or even the Cojuangcos and the Ayalas, these embodiments, personified beings of the Semifdeudal, Semicolonial society, there are other Landlord-CEOs and Latifundias who, using much Capitalist-cum-Populist rhetoric and numbers rising, the nation-society remained underdeveloped on its own; worse as it becoms degeneratied as they neglect much of self-development whilst allowing much of foreign aid, investm,ent that further makes the nation into total mendicancy. The Reforms, written in the paper and approved by the legislature are rather serves more of a topping doe Privatization, Commercialization, and Globalization schemes that, may intensify popular disconte3nt all despite of job employmenbts, additional profits and the like-woese since it also intensifies Oligarch's and Foreign monopolization through cartelization of interests, public utulities using development as its pretext.

However, this person even think that how come a Semifeudal, Semicolonial society got enough of these things yet they tied much to the soil? Due to the 75% of the Philippine society consists of the Peasantry, of less approach to domestic industry, and backeardness that, all despite reforms not enough to support? Well,m the influx of imports abroad, not to mention "Assembly Line" industy les these "Hi-Tech" gagetry gain popularity in the Philippines without any domestic industry capable of developing technology same as imported ones. Sorry top say but these policies forced the Philippines to remain backward, with less approach to technology, tied virtually to landlordism, to the soil, with mass ranks of unemployed, forcing the nation to content on foreign imports, aid, and "paper" development.

After all, as Sison said:

"The Semifeudal economy is a commodity system that has departed from the Feudal economy of self subsistence but it is one dominated by the Comprador big Bourgeoisie rather than by a homegrown National Bourgeoisie. The Urban-based big Bourgeoisie is in close partnership with the Rural-based Landlord class. At the same time, the whole Semifeudal economy is a Neocolonial pre-Industrial or an Agrarian adjunct of the world Capitalist system.

Whatever are the current propositions of gross output values and employment in Agriculture, Industry and Service sectors of the economy, all these are dependent on imported equipment, fuel, other raw materials and manufactured components from abroad. The latest "Hi-Tech" tools may be used in any sector but the Philippine economy until now does not produce these tools. Production for local consumption as well as for export has become more import-dependent than ever under the policy of "Trade Liberalization." Agricultural and Mineral production for export and low value-added production of semiconductors, garments and toys for re-export have consigned the Philippine economy to chronic foreign trade deficit and ever mounting foreign debt."

True to say all regardless of the infrastructure, the alleged growth and development stated (especially those of the rising rates and numbers), the Philippines remained stunted in growth. The government may have spend time bragging about much infrastructures like bridges, roads, fly-overs, everything just to say the nation is "Progressive." The introduction of "Modern-Day" industries may also be bragged too-that automobiles, television sets, telecommunications equipment, calling it "sufficient evidence" yet least to counter the 75% composed of the land-tilling peasantry while 15% came those who worked for the products I have stated; worse? The automobiles, television sets, are mere reassembled parts then genuinely manufactured ones "all craftedly made in the Philippines." And telling that the Philippines is a "Free Enterprise but developing Dependent Capitalist?" serves merely a facade, a propaganda jargon merely to hid its status as a Semifeudal, Semicolonial society.

After all, the tendencies of the old ages tried to concoct "old Feudal ideas" with "modern Capitalist concepts" to please foreign investment and local interests, yet, comparing to Cambodia, I mean Malaysia, the Philippines remained still "Behind" those two, as if itself remained in a 19th century with a 20th century facade. Cambodia back then, according to Khieu Samphan, tried much to develop yet despite the expansion of Cambodian Capitalism through "Detaching" the handicrafts industry from Agriculture. Same as the Philippines that, despite contacts with U.S., Spain, or Japan, even China or Europe remained underdeveloped domestically, but instead intensifies transnational contacts to set up "Industries" with the help of local Compradors, and calling it as "Development", yet 75% remained tied to the soil and still under the held of the Landlord gentry, and again, worse as the influx of foreign imports virtually stunted domestic industries, with its majority held bankrupt and "Ceded itself over" to foreign investment at the behest of the Government and of  the ruling class.

II

The weak reduction of Social Services into a propaganda motif of the ruling class showcases the system's less efforts in promoting absolute welfare in favor of the profiteering "efforts." Education for instance, became a lucrative enterprise due to the rise of Educator Compradors such as Henry Sy, Lucio Tan, etc. Eventually reducing Education from an absolute right enshrined in the Constitution, guaranteed by the State, and a vanguard of Professionalism to a mere "Corporate Social Responsibility" of the ruling class, driven enough by mere efforts for profiteering and the like. The rise of the Educator Compradors lies the tendency to stunt Education's accessibility to the people, thus limited to a moneyed gentry, while the rest end up merely to serve into the "Labor Force", or worse-to the ranks of the Lumpenproletariat.

Well, this problem somewhat became "Perennial" due to the policies the system do so. Regardless of the reform policies being undertaken so to speak yet useless due to the system's emphasis on profiteering, wrecking and other antipeople acts. Arroyo's Medium Term Philippine Development Plans of 2001-2004 and 2004-2010 failed to solve the crisis of poverty despite the alleged result hath spoken of. In Northen Samar for example, poverty incidence rose from 33.9% last 2003 to 52.2% in 2006, while in Sorsogon, it also increased from 33.7% last 2003 to 43.5% last 2006; it shows that despite "development" taken under the MTPDP from 2004-2010 (and perhaps the Millenium Development Goals) how come it failed? For sure they would speak of lawless groups sabotaging it, but still-the system failed to do so in solving the situation, and speaking of rebel groups like the Communist Party and the New People's Army, within its zones had programs radically different from the MTPDP, and tried enough to resolve the question, not to mention guns and battles but agrarian self-sufficiency and self-development without the enemy's effort like the MTPDP. The agrarian revolution, barefoot doctors, numeracy-literacy programs, tried enough to solve the question before the MTPDP of their counterpart. But it would be greater enough as the Revolution intensifies both the armed struggle and concrete social development, justice taken by the "Rebels." 

And speaking of underdevelopment, of increasing poverty incidence, as well as the MTPDP of the National Government, its efforts, from Education, Employment, Welfare and other similar acts failed to achieve its objective: From 30% last 2003 it became 37.9 last 2006. While on families it increased from 24.4% last 2003 to 26.9 last 2006. It is not merely a question of indiscipline or rebellion that caused this kind of problem. And now it may suffer badly enough due to the so-called "Public-Private Partnerships" that obviously a scheme for Privatization, thus reducing access to Social Welfare, Education, and others that possibly be given up by the Government and end up by Profiteers trying to monopolize these services in the name of "Laissez Faire."

The continuation of Arroyo's "Doleouts", known as Cash Transfer Programs, further creates mendicancy amongst the poor instead of Social Services the Government ought to be taken seriously. Is the Doleout system a part of Socioeconomic developmental process for the poor? Like the KALAHI-CIDSS and those included in the MTPDP? Or just a mere "Charity" work guised as a Welfare act taken by the state, using taxes instead of personal accounts?

Like the past ages the Filipino encountered, the desperate measures, paper reforms and faux progressive practises fail to solve as the system remains "Semifeudal" and "Semicolonial". The National Economic Development Authority didn't undertake such long-term measures along with the Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Agriculture, Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Works and Highways, even Department of Education and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority to promote Industrialization and advancing Agrarian Reform same as the continuous creation of professionals supposedly geared for the purpose of Domestic work; and instead, focusing on mere band-aid solutions that further deteriorates self-reliance and development whilst increasing profits for the State and vested interests. Oversease Filipino Workers, Seasonal Employments, Self-Employed Business Entities tried yet failed to develop the Philippine economy seriously, all despite the remittances, the filling of companies with good personnel, still-failed to produce suffiency. Or speaking of OFWs, this society is engaging in a modern-day slave trade!

And secondly, does all remittances, salaries, income produced by these "Employed" fit enough for their families all year around? Does it inculcate self-sufficiency or further deteriorate domestic growth in favor of the system's unfair economic practises? Indeed, it inculcate development, but the fact lies that most of it end up for paying debts, pockets, and for mere programs served as a topping for deteriorating status of the State. The system may had ordered people to engage in businesses, yet failed to create an industry to support these people and a genuine Agrarian Reform Program to inculcate genuine self-sufficiency. Like 19th  century Cambodia, or early 20th century South America, failed to expand all due to the dominancy of the Elite, especially the Comprador Bourgeoisie, the Landlord class and of course, the Imperialists such as the United States.

III

In regards to crafts, Agriculture, and the system's failure to Industrialize, the Philippines, still in the clutches of American Imperialism and of its domestic allies, forced its own "Industry" geared to a foreign centre.

Like Cambodia of Khieu Samphan, the Filipino domestic industry absolutely failed to meet the demands due to foreign interference and state negligence, resulting to weak and unbalanced sector of the economy and do not constitute an inegrated, autonomous national whole.

Cosmos Bottling, Selecta Ice Cream, they end up under a large, foreign entity as most owners failed despite popularity to fulfill demands as domestic Capitalists. And instead, they end up virtually dependent on outside circumstances over in which Filipino society has some to very little control. Cosmos Bottling end up controlled by Coca Cola while Selecta Ice Cream, once a pride of Arce and Sons co. end up under control of Unilever N.V, with  RFM of Raul Concepcion as its Filipino partner for the ice cream business. The dominance of foreign enterprise clearly shows how the State,  despite accumulating profits, failed to support domestic industry enough; or rather failed to fulfill Recto's Economic Solution in favor of those from the IMF-WB. The Philippine industry remained rather contented on light and small-scale with less approach to heavy ones like Jacinto and Puyat steel. But due to the system's contentment on foreign investment, enterprise, aid, nearly neglects domestic enterprise, leaving it to eventual "swallow" to large corporate entities both Comprador and foreign.

The Pharmaceutical industry got a greater blow as foreign investment dominated much of it. According to IBON, A.T. Suaco & Co. Enticed to enter into a joint venture with Wyeth International with promises of USAID loans last 1959. A.T. Suaco, a Filipino-owned medicine company, was a major force in the local drug industry. In 1951, it already produced enough vitamins, antibiotics, I.V solutions domestically, yet in the end, it became controlled, and virtually integrated into Wyeth's global operations. So are the others that end up "swallowed" by bigger foreign entities or Comprador-owned institutions at the behest of the Government, if not for becoming bankrupt.

God forbid, but people would possibly think of it worse and possibly to take "worse opposive measures" to counter the system's trend of "opposing people while profiteering for the economy." The people themselves endure poverty, faux reforms, propaganda facades, oppressive actions and even countless promises the system spoke and dealt forth yet failed to achieve. That most industries are being stunted by countless foreign trade agreements that obviously unfair, yes, unfair and even failed to touch people's minds due to their oppressive measures taken. Industrialized countries like the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Korea stunted much the growth of Filipino's attempt to create stronger foundations of a self-reliant industry in order to protect their markets, yet despite creating markets and supporting system's efforts for "improving"  economy it intensifies unemployment, poverty, underdevelopment and popular opposition while the system itself remained aloof to it.

Obviously, the people are indeed living in a 21st century lifestyle, but the status of the Filipino society remained like those of late 19th to the 1980s, that despite of modern day technology brought by foreign imports of gadgetry, it remained predominantly Agricultural: 75% under the Peasantry, 15% Workers to deal against 1% of moochers, thieves of the society; all in the guise of the landed gentry (Landlords, Compradors and Imperialists)?

Where's productive development then? Is it in the modern buildings in Metro Manila? Computers and Cellular Phones? This is not merely a question of numbers but of proofs to be shown to the people. For people aren't contented in remittances, doleouts, promises, faux idealism to end up as debt payments and bullets as its large chunk!? Better to look at the surrounding and for sure these people, the 99% would simply tell everyone that the system, regardless of its achievement, still failed to seriously deal in this kind of problem. The Philippines remained behind most of the South East Asian countries regardless of the Cellular Phones and Computers, Internet and Cable TV as long as the system retains age-old features such as a Semifeudal, Semicolonial image manifested by a predominantly agricultural society with less approach to industry; with its Landlordism, backwardness, Imperialist-Comprador profiteering and control of vital needs and less approach to progressive development.

Sources:

IBON facts and figures, volume 20, no. 10-11 October-November 2009

The Drug Industry in the Philippines, IBON Databank, 2001

Underdevelopment in Cambodia by Khieu Samphan

Philippine Economy and Politics by Jose Maria Sison and Julieta de Lima