"Speaking on behalf of industrialization"
Seems that the debate on industrialization continues to intensify especially when neoliberal-inclined anti-industrialization and globalization advocates continues to babble their sentiments ranging from equating industrialization to oligarchy up to their insistence of just opening the nation and turning it entirely into a freeport-like existence, less governments and big business, especially on behalf of foreign conglomerates acting as substitutes for the oligarchs neoliberalists abhorred much.
In fact, that issue is so decades-old, ranging from legislative debates to social media commentaries, the debate regarding the need for industrialization, especially whose orientation is nationalist and people-centered, continues to be advocated by small and medium scale enterprises, patriotic-minded businesspeople whose intention is to utilize natural resources and curbing employment, yet being abhorred by those who rather insist opening up Philippines and turning it into a freeport, exporting raw materials and importing finished ones, if not having foreign owned companies exploit people for cheap labor, promising them with good wages yet disregarding local holidays if not respecting regulations.
Well, on behalf of those clamoring for industrialization, not all matters pertaining to domestic-based development, especially those of industrialization are those from the oligarchs; oligarchs have confused ideas yet having the same interest as international moneylenders and big-named conglomerates do. Oligarchs owned most plantations, and international moneylenders wanted to expropriate agricultrual for themselves such as turning farmland into commercial complexes such as agritourism and rest and recteation facilities. Therefore, what kind of agrarian reform is the present system speaking? Just like earlier attempts for industrialization, what they made is a façade built for impression. The retreatist character of the system made such aspirations doom to fail, especially that the ruling class failed to pursue what they're offering to the people, much more that they themselves have different points of view.
One may favor industrialization in pursuit of utilizing manpower and resources for domestic pursposes, another favors just opening for foreign investment with themselves willing to cooperate with transnational companies and international moneylenders searching for cheap labor. Some favor protectionism for themselves, another favor globalization and neoliberalism as long as they benefit themselves as well; and the people? They're just being used and fooled by the ruling class whom babbled both sentiments much more that they are still blinded by tangible illusions of grandeur such as commercial complexes and business centers, roads and bridges all made to impress and trying to hide the real situation like latifundia-style feudalism and cash crop-oriented plantation system in the countryside.
This writer had seen anything what the system had done in pursuit of impression. Few officials, businessmen may seriously adhere to their goals of building a better nation; idealists like Araneta had afford to break importing flour though his RFM, Andres Soriano did expand his San Miguel from a mere brewery to a food conglomerate, Guevara with his Radiowealth, and others whose intention is to have a self-sufficient nation. Some dared to have partnerships with companies abroad in pursuit of technology transfers yet a few succeeded and the rest end absorbed by their foreign partners. But the system, two faced so to speak made everyone confused which policy should been enacted. And again, some of these people this writer had stated failed to pursue their "patriotic aspirations" evenly, especially those of their successors whom can't even resolve labor issues but instead making strikes intensified, or failed to compete with imported ones as the system can't even control the flow of imports courtesy of those unequal agreements.
So are the leaders, puppets and representatives of the system at first, can't even pursue people's aspirations seriously and instead aggravating age old tensions regardless of the papers being signed and promises to end unequality in certain agreements. Marcos, for example, had once said about ending decontrol made by his predecessor Macapagal, yet he didn't pursued as he became president; people may admire him for his series of infrastructures in and around Metropolitan Manila and provinces, and yet industrialization failed to pursue because of outside intervenors like IMF-WB. He had allegedly punished the oligarchs according to his writeups, imprisoned Lopezes and "nationalized" Meralco, and yet he substituted those with his cronies to control those sequestered (or in their terms, "nationalized"), and even collaborate with other oligarchs like those of Ayala and Zobel. Did Hacienda Luisita being expropriated that time as well as the others to justify his angst against the landholding oligarchs? No. He even tolerated Enrile in his exploitation that made Samar flooded during rainy season.
Sorry to those whom are too loyal without thinking critically, but he failed to justify his democracy as for the poor regardless of what he did. So is independence regardless of the rhetoric being said of. People may benefit from his rule such as the roads, bridges, and other kinds of infrastructure being built, so as to endure the hardships like some of his policies involving a chunk of tax-supported national budget be allocated to debt servicing, a floating peso, rising costs of goods and services, upholding some unequal treaties, and extrajudicial actions.
And speaking of dictators, not all orderly fashions can spur change and progress. Sometimes, this writer would think that people had assailed North Korea and yet it's much disciplined than those of Singapore regardless of its hardship; you hated corrupt people and calling for trial, yet it is also the same you who cried purge after Stalin had punished those whom did wrecking against the economy in the former Soviet Union. You had admired the modernity what United States had offered, yet failed to develop its own regardless of having national scientists, artists and people with good potential. And now you want progress yet having half hearted thoughts about industrialization and land reform while favoring just opening the country for globalization and neoliberalism? Not all aid can stimulate development, regardless of its intentions such as "aid is altruism" or "aid supports the poor by the rich" with the latter actually exploits them by insisting dependency over self reliance as a society. Once, Lenin called for aid coming from European countries and even from the U.S., yet end rather focusing in themselves, reconstructing although countries that earlier aloof in Soviet's call for aid, like the U.S. did afford, yet limited such as Ford tractors to professionals, even businessmen that happened to be sympathizing with the Soviets. But still, U.S. and other countries in Europe took a hands off on that matter until they notice a different Russia that was a product of its "New Economic Policy" and the first 5 year plans. China did tolerate some businessmen in its early days as a socialist state, yet at the same time focusing on industrialization regardless of Soviet aid, the latter, in expressing proletarian internationalism did gave aid as contrary to the obviously interest-seeking ventures of the U.S. In providing aid and investment.
Anyways, how wonder why Ersoy of Turkey said about civilization of the west as a single-fanged monster. It had brought modernization courtesy of its superb knoweldge and technology yet at the same time unleashes its own barbarism worse than the undeveloped yet willing to march towards modernity. The developed west rather treats both the underdeveloped and developing east as its own farm, gold mine, and oil derrick knowing that their resources as abundant, hence accumulating profits from these and blocking popular attempts to develop in its own. Both by the system and its very own fanboys. Lucky if there are foreign investors willing to support the intentions of a state trying to develop its own by industrialializing itself by means of technology transfers, financial support, to training of personnel and any other means as respected through certain agreements that includes, stresses mutual benefit and equality. As what the 12 point program of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines said:
"Trade and other forms of economic relations with all countries shall be promoted on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. The state, whenever possible, shall engage in barter or counter- trade with such countries as are willing and able to do so.
Foreign investments and loans shall be availed if these provide the country with the least costly access to needed technology, products and markets as defined by specific economic plans. These should not lead to a chain of “reforms” which take the country off the road of socialism and restore the economic and political power of the bourgeoisie."
"Reforms" are often used as a smokescreen for reactions. And if domestic-based development such as those being described, especially those of industrialization, utilizing national resources for domestic use, and stressing mutual benefit in agreements with foreign countries is socialism then so be it!
This writer may still read both those whom favor and those whom not from debate forums to social media sites. They would cite facts and figures, blaming either the domestic oligarch or the much profit-driven foreigner or even both knowing that they exploiting resources, of pitting small and medium enterprises, and fooling people by telling about development that disregards self-reliance. Foreign investment, or even aid can be good or bad. Good in a sense that it supports development, while bad in a sense that it creates dependency. And, sorry to mention, how come countries like China or Vietnam, or even Korea had to develop first their own and encourage to emphasise first their own regardless of opening its own to foreign investment? Foreign investment seemed good yet has to be tempered with domestic based production, in which a government run by the people has to encourage, even protecting small and medium enterprises and supporting not just in making infrastructure but in actual industry as well; this writer also knows that the present system in the Philippines may likely to fail simply because of oligarchs if not self-emphasised bureaucrats whom end up objects of discussion due to economic wrecking. Worse, those oligarchs are also bureaucrats, babbling economic protectionism and at the same time currying foreign investment, speaking on behalf of reforms yet they kept mum in speeding agrarian reform and additional wage increase, industrialization did fail because of their Janus-faced stance that is "sometimes yes, sometimes no." Hence, they are obviously doing economic wrecking, and people should consistently oppose if they wanted to speed up development!
Anyways, pardon this person's English to say "economic wrecking," for graft, corruption, malversation of public funds is part of economic wrecking. But if may ask, when will there be people having real patriotic and pro-people conciousness willing to support these efforts such as to industrialize a society and to utilize resources for the common good? Of what use is educated people if they are to be employees outside than willing to contribute their knowlege in reconstruction and development, innovation and renaissance?
Yes, those whom chose to oppose had points such as oligarchs and prefering the dominancy of international capital to mind over the country's economy, and hence they chose to capitulate unto it; but does not mean need not to focus on production, of being self reliant, so as to justify indepndence and capability to stand up on its own as a nation. Open doors comes income for the high-profile, big named profiteers in the name of international capital; but how about the state? Perhaps a small chunk, or even crumbs despite its policing tasks and sort of ceremonial brouhaha, hence has to rely on aid for their projects, mostly Potemkin and built for impression if that's the case.
Theirs is a two way road, that usually goes on the other especially in today's system. In fact, that issue is so decades-old, ranging from legislative debates to social media commentaries, the debate regarding the need for industrialization, especially whose orientation is nationalist and people-centered, continues to be advocated by small and medium scale enterprises, patriotic-minded businesspeople whose intention is to utilize natural resources and curbing employment, yet being abhorred by those who rather insist opening up Philippines and turning it into a freeport, exporting raw materials and importing finished ones, if not having foreign owned companies exploit people for cheap labor, promising them with good wages yet disregarding local holidays if not respecting regulations.
Well, on behalf of those clamoring for industrialization, not all matters pertaining to domestic-based development, especially those of industrialization are those from the oligarchs; oligarchs have confused ideas yet having the same interest as international moneylenders and big-named conglomerates do. Oligarchs owned most plantations, and international moneylenders wanted to expropriate agricultrual for themselves such as turning farmland into commercial complexes such as agritourism and rest and recteation facilities. Therefore, what kind of agrarian reform is the present system speaking? Just like earlier attempts for industrialization, what they made is a façade built for impression. The retreatist character of the system made such aspirations doom to fail, especially that the ruling class failed to pursue what they're offering to the people, much more that they themselves have different points of view.
One may favor industrialization in pursuit of utilizing manpower and resources for domestic pursposes, another favors just opening for foreign investment with themselves willing to cooperate with transnational companies and international moneylenders searching for cheap labor. Some favor protectionism for themselves, another favor globalization and neoliberalism as long as they benefit themselves as well; and the people? They're just being used and fooled by the ruling class whom babbled both sentiments much more that they are still blinded by tangible illusions of grandeur such as commercial complexes and business centers, roads and bridges all made to impress and trying to hide the real situation like latifundia-style feudalism and cash crop-oriented plantation system in the countryside.
This writer had seen anything what the system had done in pursuit of impression. Few officials, businessmen may seriously adhere to their goals of building a better nation; idealists like Araneta had afford to break importing flour though his RFM, Andres Soriano did expand his San Miguel from a mere brewery to a food conglomerate, Guevara with his Radiowealth, and others whose intention is to have a self-sufficient nation. Some dared to have partnerships with companies abroad in pursuit of technology transfers yet a few succeeded and the rest end absorbed by their foreign partners. But the system, two faced so to speak made everyone confused which policy should been enacted. And again, some of these people this writer had stated failed to pursue their "patriotic aspirations" evenly, especially those of their successors whom can't even resolve labor issues but instead making strikes intensified, or failed to compete with imported ones as the system can't even control the flow of imports courtesy of those unequal agreements.
So are the leaders, puppets and representatives of the system at first, can't even pursue people's aspirations seriously and instead aggravating age old tensions regardless of the papers being signed and promises to end unequality in certain agreements. Marcos, for example, had once said about ending decontrol made by his predecessor Macapagal, yet he didn't pursued as he became president; people may admire him for his series of infrastructures in and around Metropolitan Manila and provinces, and yet industrialization failed to pursue because of outside intervenors like IMF-WB. He had allegedly punished the oligarchs according to his writeups, imprisoned Lopezes and "nationalized" Meralco, and yet he substituted those with his cronies to control those sequestered (or in their terms, "nationalized"), and even collaborate with other oligarchs like those of Ayala and Zobel. Did Hacienda Luisita being expropriated that time as well as the others to justify his angst against the landholding oligarchs? No. He even tolerated Enrile in his exploitation that made Samar flooded during rainy season.
Sorry to those whom are too loyal without thinking critically, but he failed to justify his democracy as for the poor regardless of what he did. So is independence regardless of the rhetoric being said of. People may benefit from his rule such as the roads, bridges, and other kinds of infrastructure being built, so as to endure the hardships like some of his policies involving a chunk of tax-supported national budget be allocated to debt servicing, a floating peso, rising costs of goods and services, upholding some unequal treaties, and extrajudicial actions.
And speaking of dictators, not all orderly fashions can spur change and progress. Sometimes, this writer would think that people had assailed North Korea and yet it's much disciplined than those of Singapore regardless of its hardship; you hated corrupt people and calling for trial, yet it is also the same you who cried purge after Stalin had punished those whom did wrecking against the economy in the former Soviet Union. You had admired the modernity what United States had offered, yet failed to develop its own regardless of having national scientists, artists and people with good potential. And now you want progress yet having half hearted thoughts about industrialization and land reform while favoring just opening the country for globalization and neoliberalism? Not all aid can stimulate development, regardless of its intentions such as "aid is altruism" or "aid supports the poor by the rich" with the latter actually exploits them by insisting dependency over self reliance as a society. Once, Lenin called for aid coming from European countries and even from the U.S., yet end rather focusing in themselves, reconstructing although countries that earlier aloof in Soviet's call for aid, like the U.S. did afford, yet limited such as Ford tractors to professionals, even businessmen that happened to be sympathizing with the Soviets. But still, U.S. and other countries in Europe took a hands off on that matter until they notice a different Russia that was a product of its "New Economic Policy" and the first 5 year plans. China did tolerate some businessmen in its early days as a socialist state, yet at the same time focusing on industrialization regardless of Soviet aid, the latter, in expressing proletarian internationalism did gave aid as contrary to the obviously interest-seeking ventures of the U.S. In providing aid and investment.
Anyways, how wonder why Ersoy of Turkey said about civilization of the west as a single-fanged monster. It had brought modernization courtesy of its superb knoweldge and technology yet at the same time unleashes its own barbarism worse than the undeveloped yet willing to march towards modernity. The developed west rather treats both the underdeveloped and developing east as its own farm, gold mine, and oil derrick knowing that their resources as abundant, hence accumulating profits from these and blocking popular attempts to develop in its own. Both by the system and its very own fanboys. Lucky if there are foreign investors willing to support the intentions of a state trying to develop its own by industrialializing itself by means of technology transfers, financial support, to training of personnel and any other means as respected through certain agreements that includes, stresses mutual benefit and equality. As what the 12 point program of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines said:
"Trade and other forms of economic relations with all countries shall be promoted on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. The state, whenever possible, shall engage in barter or counter- trade with such countries as are willing and able to do so.
Foreign investments and loans shall be availed if these provide the country with the least costly access to needed technology, products and markets as defined by specific economic plans. These should not lead to a chain of “reforms” which take the country off the road of socialism and restore the economic and political power of the bourgeoisie."
"Reforms" are often used as a smokescreen for reactions. And if domestic-based development such as those being described, especially those of industrialization, utilizing national resources for domestic use, and stressing mutual benefit in agreements with foreign countries is socialism then so be it!
This writer may still read both those whom favor and those whom not from debate forums to social media sites. They would cite facts and figures, blaming either the domestic oligarch or the much profit-driven foreigner or even both knowing that they exploiting resources, of pitting small and medium enterprises, and fooling people by telling about development that disregards self-reliance. Foreign investment, or even aid can be good or bad. Good in a sense that it supports development, while bad in a sense that it creates dependency. And, sorry to mention, how come countries like China or Vietnam, or even Korea had to develop first their own and encourage to emphasise first their own regardless of opening its own to foreign investment? Foreign investment seemed good yet has to be tempered with domestic based production, in which a government run by the people has to encourage, even protecting small and medium enterprises and supporting not just in making infrastructure but in actual industry as well; this writer also knows that the present system in the Philippines may likely to fail simply because of oligarchs if not self-emphasised bureaucrats whom end up objects of discussion due to economic wrecking. Worse, those oligarchs are also bureaucrats, babbling economic protectionism and at the same time currying foreign investment, speaking on behalf of reforms yet they kept mum in speeding agrarian reform and additional wage increase, industrialization did fail because of their Janus-faced stance that is "sometimes yes, sometimes no." Hence, they are obviously doing economic wrecking, and people should consistently oppose if they wanted to speed up development!
Anyways, pardon this person's English to say "economic wrecking," for graft, corruption, malversation of public funds is part of economic wrecking. But if may ask, when will there be people having real patriotic and pro-people conciousness willing to support these efforts such as to industrialize a society and to utilize resources for the common good? Of what use is educated people if they are to be employees outside than willing to contribute their knowlege in reconstruction and development, innovation and renaissance?
Yes, those whom chose to oppose had points such as oligarchs and prefering the dominancy of international capital to mind over the country's economy, and hence they chose to capitulate unto it; but does not mean need not to focus on production, of being self reliant, so as to justify indepndence and capability to stand up on its own as a nation. Open doors comes income for the high-profile, big named profiteers in the name of international capital; but how about the state? Perhaps a small chunk, or even crumbs despite its policing tasks and sort of ceremonial brouhaha, hence has to rely on aid for their projects, mostly Potemkin and built for impression if that's the case.
That's all for now,
Thank you.