"Neither from Peking or Washington
to dictate over Makati and Malabon!"
At first, this writeup was made both in reponse to the latest events such as the agreement between the United States and the Philippines, the intrusion of China over the issue of Scarborough and Spratlys, and lastly, the World Economic Forum that became an object of protests days ago in Makati. This writeup, actually may mimic those of the last century's statements from those whom oppose unjust foreign intervention out of patriotic interests, be it may those of Peru's Victor Raúl, or favoring just international solidarity like those of Chou Enlai or Indonesia's Sœkarno. But these examples of these individuals rather banner neither of the dominating powers to impose policies and instead enouraging countries to fraternize in spirit of internationalism and at the same time constructing development in "one country" by its "own people" (sorry Stalin).
Despite emphasing much of development, economics, rather than purely politics as the reader possibly thinks of in this post, this writeup speaks how a nation whom is true to its supposed roots has to go deviant from the so-called norms being imposed by today's international order. Yes, the Philippines had been weak despite assuming strong by mainstream media. That despite having sprawling buildings and modern-day infrastructure, feudalism continues to dominate such as supporting corporate interest in the field of cash crops, of government bureaucrats emphasising their self-gratification tempered by their personality cults, and the system itself, despite bannering independence, non-alignment, and other progressive rhetoric continues to rely on bigger entities, such as the United States and its allied organizations whether to "support the economy" (by imposing neoliberal 'reforms') or "to counter China" (by relying on US troops and reducing domestic defence for mere internal security).
But other than the system whom tries to control the people with illusions, there are those whom acting on behalf of them by sugarcoating terms such as equating globalization with internationalism, of neoliberalism with development, or even austerity measures with reforms. These apologetics had abhor domestic-based development while favoring (un)just catering to foreign capital without solid economic foundations such as production.
When was the time globalization had to be synonymous with internationalism? Is globalization did really benefit developing countries in exchange for being subervient to the dictates of the so-called developed countries? How wonder why people nowadays had shelved or reduced their patriotic consciousness in favor of material benefits coming from those whose intention is to exploit brain and brawn of its subjects. The United States or China may had offered jobs through its companies, or investors willing to invest, but how about domestic ones willing to set genuine foundations of an independent, self-reliant economy? Economists may speak much of intense competition, but in reality, did they allow a nation to cripple its own domestic enterprise in favor of massive influx of imports and calling it "just" as investment?
After all, as what José Maria Sison said, that "the false claim that capitalism has triumphed over socialism, the imperialists are worried to death that the capitalist crisis of overproduction (accelerated by high technology, finance capitalism and neocolonialism) has far worsened and that social turmoil has rapidly spread since the disintegration of the revisionist ruling parties and regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union." The United States had experienced recession, that the system had to bailout banks instead of supporting its people. Europe had faced protests such as Spain, France, and the heavily affected Hellas that eventually superseded with the events at Ukraine and Russia; and China, whom once presented as socialist had end succumbed to neoliberalism that made workers protest such as in Shanghai,while at the same time parroting 'nationalist sentiment' in its expansionism against its former tributaries regarding Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal.
Borrowing existing ideas for an indigenous purpose
It seemed strange nowadays that patriotism, or nationalism has been reduced into a masquerade, cosmetic sentiment, if not unjustly withered away in favor of globalization. Based from those whom had favoured the latter, patriotism is all bt a waste of time and hence be applied in an occasional events such as paying taxes, watching beauty contest, boxing and basketball matches. They would even label those whom applying modern yet foreign, rather than indigenous ideas as anathema to their perception of patriotism as all but chauvinism.
Yes, there are chauvinists such as those whom treating patriotism as all but a masquerade, acting like purists yet failing to materialise their "aspirations" and hence be subjected to countless criticism. But on the other hand, there are people who chose to be pragmatic, utilitarian, and likely to be understandable how they had to borrow ideas regardless of being foreign, of indigenise things, forging new tools based on existing foreign counterparts. That out of narrow mindedness most people whom cater closely to globalization and the illusion of 'global village' would say that patriotism is tantamount to just isolationism and chauvinism citing Juche Korea's, or Nazi Germany's example, that being patriotic means limited to things that are all but domestically made, but does it mean prohibiting the use of things foreign especially if the purpose is patriotic such as the use of fs foreign-made, modern gadgetry? Is modernity itself only applicable to the developed countries especially those of the imperialists and hence those whom using modern tools be subvervient to imperialism itself? How about those whom studying in imperialist-oriented schools and working in institutions yet having a dominant strain of patriotism in their aspirations?
From these people whom despite studying in institutions supposedly molded in unjust building of a 'globalized' society yet trying to create the contrary such as emphasising patriotism and nation building are those whom utilize existing thought to create another, if not using existing tools in forging a different creation. Basing on actual realities and people's needs, it is man's intention to use existing ideas to formulate in pursuit of advancement; most of which were indigenized ideas of the occident, if not the usual medicine or soap coming from a certain extract found in an underdeveloped region. And those whom willing to create a synthesis of oriental and occidental thought, if not making an adaptation of occidental thought into oriental setting showed creativity in pursuit of struggle for national and social existence.
Yes, If China's Mao Zedong had to use Marxism in organizing the peasants at Hunan, and at the same time using Monkey King as example and encouraging modern medicine pratitioners to study traditional chinese medicine at Yenan, the Philippines' very own Andres Bonifacio had to study the French Revolution at Tondo and at the same time reading Jose Rizal's works, and sought the repressive lives of an average Juan and Juana desperately wanting freedom against the knout of the guardia civil in Montalban or Balara. Both had least foreign and native influences fused to create an idea that applies on concrete condition and social reality.
And despite knowing that Orthodox Marxists would beg to disagree the use of People's war as they favor just strikes and urban insurrection, and butt-warming Liberals abhor violence as they insist peaceful lobbying and mere negotiations, it was creativity and looking at the real setting made what Mao Zedong and Andres Bonifacio happen to indigenise ideas deemed foreign if to apply fundamentally: one cannot rely just on urban-based strikes knowing that the enemy was eager to kill them, the latter cannot content in just making opinion-based writeups like those of La Solidaridad knowing that the people are yearning for blood against blood. After all, El Filibusterismo and Noli me Tangere reflects then social realities, and it had to realize the unfinished chapters by having blood as its ink and the sharpened bamboo spear as its pen.
Again, to those whom chose to join the "flow"
of misconscuousness
Yet still, despite all the countestatements and trying to understand why there are some who remained patriotic in their mindsets, having firm morals regardless of using modern things, people whom chose to join the flow called "materialism" has to abhor nationalism by telling those whom are patriotic should not use modern things since they are foreign, not knowing that every raw material, or the labor being used also came from the homeland itself. Yes, that your shoes, shirts, or the jeans had been manufactured at the export processing zones with labels coming from abroad such as Levis or Jag. They may not been called "Philippine made" since they aren't really made for domestic use but rather, for export and resold back and called as "Made in the USA." And these materialists of the capitalist kind? They care about the name of the label but not the one whom worked for long for that hell of a kind apparel.
Worse, they care less about their hardship, not to mention how much the wage been paid for them that is not enough to pay obligations nor buy essentials. These workers are willing to go on strike if possible after not given an adequate wage out of long hours of work for those apparel for those pesky materialists of today. Pesky in a sense that their lives and consciousness as all but work, earn, buy, consume till they die. Apathy at its finest, and if they afford to "care" about the issue, as all but a minor matter to think of in favor of how much that goddamn gadget to use on.
These people would had been promising enough if they have strong patriotic consciousness and willingness to contribute in setting foundations of a strong, self-reliant society. Juche Korea had much difficulty after its arduous march, even Cuba during its Special Period. But how about the Philippines with its resources sufficient as what this writer stated? Proper management and willingness to serve the people makes a society successful than to rely on outsider's investment. Of what is productivity if a nation has to rely on outsider's alms? People would say that anything is shifted from production to international capital, that neoliberalism is a key for progress not knowing that it is the same neoliberalism that imposes cheap labor, unjust flow of imports that cripple domestic produce while at the same time turning a supposed growing nation a farm for bigger interests both oligarch and foreign entities alike. Patriotism and self reliance doesn't require to be like those of Juche Korea or Cuba in its austerity measures. Actually, the Philippines, as said earlier has much resources than these two socialist countries western media had abhorred much and thus much encouraging to focus on production and at the same time accepting outside capital also in pursuit of genuine developement; but the important is that a nation needs stronger foundations such as industry, especially in the rural areas to cater potential professionals such as engineers, scientists, to mechanics and others, not just farmers in communal lands willing to man an enterprise with stronger emphasis of catering to the demands of the people.
And that idea is inspired by Recto and Lichauco, or even Amado Guerrero, if not those of Hamilton or John Maynard Keynes or even the Strasser bros. to speak of genuine, domestic-based development over unjust globalization as basis. Some, if not most nor even few people would understand as most are still indulged in what goes on such as a mindset got carried away by wholesale imports and say "patriots, nationalists doesn't deserve modern things and ideas for they're imports and they should content with the ancient." The withering away of history, heritage, reality from their mindsets paved way to distorted "truths" and a series of illusions contrary to what is actually seen and felt.
Neither from Peking nor Washington
to dictate over Makati and Malabon!
As time goes by, few people did their best to remain firm in Filipino heritage and at the same time trying to forge a good outcome to match with today's standards. The era of globalization and international capital made everyone, regardless of its citizenship to forget whom are they and instead becoming rootless, with a smattering of "identity" for cosmetic purposes such as waving the flag and singing the national anthem during a boxing match, a beauty pageant, or some sort of event that includes allegedly "patriotic" sentiment.
But, will they willing to express actively as a patriot? A few as this writer would say, most rather rely on a bigger entity whom they think of had offered much such as modern weaponries and the "effort" to construct such as after the second world war. But despite all these there's no real amity than of interest such as turning a nation that is supposed to be independent, self reliant, into independent but in paper and reliant to a bigger entity especially in regards to national defence or in the economy. Sorry to say this, but nationalism nowadays is all but a cosmetic tool being treated by the system, while seriously adhereing to neoliberalism and globalization in both idea and practise. And paying taxes be end an object of ridicule for scrupulous bureaucrats than the common good benefit in it. Therefore, is paying taxes an expression of nationalist interests? Um, nowadays possibly not really but a matter being insisted by the system with Potemkin roads presented to be sought by people that "they are doing their obligations" as a state.
After all, since this nation really deemed progressive by mainstream media, then how come the system disregard both industrialization and agrarian reform despite parroting or making a "practise of sorts" to compliment those terms. But years ago a government official called those terms as "passé" yet actually the same semifeudal semicolonial order whom is pretending to be independent and democratic is itself passé, trying to survive by remittances if not the service sector full of semiemployed contractuals. When was the time there was really national development and a chance of standing up on its own if most of the proposals were being scrapped off in favor of a floating peso, dependent on imports, and reliance on superpowers? The production of guns and ammunition, the small-scale creation of boats for the navy, and even the refurbishing of American-made armored vehicles may had least trying to create a showcase of self reliance in regards to national security, and yet with latest revisits to age-old military doctrines, with emphasis earlier and current agreements with the United States seemed to have these 'self reliant programs' all but a façade as the armed forces had to satisfy on secondhand equipment that yes, refurbished, while at the same time unveiling its mendicancy by offering territories, as military bases without knowing what kind of 'protection' will the United States would really offer to the Filipino fanboys desperate to counter China without rebuilding itself s a nation. Perhaps it will be just like Vietnam this writer guessed of if that's the case.
Ironically, the Philippines is a member of the non-aligned movement, but seeing such latest events and actions by the present mendicant order it had failed itself to act as non-aligned, nor not really acting as a SouthEast Asian nation but instead a trying hard member of the Organization of American States (with the latter some had end joining at the left-oriented MercoSur).
This writer, like most others, had seen how the Philippines presents itself as a developing nation yet fails to act seriously in it. Some would blame on the post-EDSA outcome not knowing that even in earlier eras the system had intentionally fail to advance people's aspirations for their interests, that self reliance as all but a façade, that patriotism is all but a cosmetic purpose while easily adhering to neoliberalism. The revolt of the poor continues to haunt over Malacanang, Batasan up to the sugar estates and plantations of Central Luzon, Negros and in Mindanao, while writers whom trying to act as successors of Recto and Tañada had to counter those whom favoring a mendicant foreign policy that includes bigger nations interfering in economic, political, and social affairs.
Yet most people care less about these and some rather chose to content in a mendicant status quo, seeing illusions of a nation awash with imports, cash, pseudo-development, with shallow, flag waving patriotism as the icing of the cake. Why does anyone had to rely on an interest-seeking, bigger bully to counter another while at the same time assuming as a nationalist like those of Rizal and Bonifacio? When will they stop relying on secondhand trash and imports and instead forging new ideas and things out of what they learned regardless of being foreign? Remember, Neither Peking, Tokyo, London or Washington has the right to dictate over those of Manila and Malabon. This Philippines had enough influences coming from every country, and even experienced using tools bought from planes and ships landedut or boarded in every port. But does not mean that the Philippines has to act helpless and contented in mere foreign aid than to stand up and be self reliant as old people used to say "change starts from the self." How ironic that everyone used to hear those words, that people should persevere, yet in a system such as what everyone sees is all but relying on a bigger superpower to counter another.
