(Again,) the need for self-reliance and mutual support amongst countries for genuine National Development

(Again,) on the need for self-reliance 

and mutual support amongst countries

for genuine National Development

For the globalist, it has been advantageous to say that so-called free market, trade, and reliance on foreign investments as the ever-continuing norm thinking that through relying on developed countries it also meant a ready market especially for a developing, agricultural-dependent country like the Philippines.

Through being overheard in state and business sector-led press releases, news articles, and posts in social media by economic 'reformists', that idea insists that contemporary economic development has as if "incomplete" without the generous need of outside investment, as well as agreements that bluntly requires foreign-control of utilities and resources- including those considered as national patrimony as well as eminent domains which meant to be preserved and cherished by those who inherited; and from this it is well considered by economists, for thinking that instead of setting further economic foundations particularly those of industry, that depending on foreign capital, on commerce with its imports, meant easy access to necessary goods with less or without the need for industry; and sometimes they still behave as if it could restore world conditions of the past through relying on the export of semi-manufactures, raw materials, and services to pay for finished goods.
In other words, they are still telling that that a developing, what more of an underdeveloped, must “Export or Die” regardless of its consequences, but with competition increasing in world markets and with the industries of other countries growing more efficient, a country's very existence is threatened if to continue to depend upon the export drive; what more that development continues to be at a turtle's if not a snail's pace. Because of this, a call for self-reliance through agrarian reform and industrialisation is the way.

This isn't new actually, for knowing that in countries whose economic adherence is to capitalism and thinking that by heeding the international demand for raw and semi-processed materials meant chances of generous flow of cheap goods, free trade and dependency from "developed" countries is itself a norm; and that the third world hath to skip steps and instead rely on agreements which presented as panacea for socio-economic problems, emphasising a particular economic sector regardless of its effects that rather harms the people and benefits the few; of making interests firm in its foothold while the people feeling badly at its loss.

Citing Mao, Recto

Many years ago, Mao Zedong, in desiring to revive China after years of semifeudal-semicolonial existence, desired for the need for domestic economic development particularly through promoting self-reliance. From this vision, instructed the Chinese people that:

"Reply mainly on our own efforts while making external assistance subsidiary, break down blind faith, go in for industry, agriculture, and technical and cultural revolutions independently, do away with slavishness, bury dogmatism, learn from the good experience of other countries conscientiously and be sure to study their bad experiences too, so as to draw lessons from it. This is our line."

Sounds political isn't it? For knowing that the one who saidth was a once strongman in "red" China, having a self-reliant economy especially in a country that's abundant in natural resources and labor power should be used for the country's benefit; while at the same time considering subsidiary support from foreign countries on the basis of mutualism and respect; be it economic aid, investment, various forms of economic and technical exchanges with other countries in order to improve and expand existing structures, if not to hasten development.

But not all understood his message. Sometimes people mistaken his idea of self reliance to those of xenophobia or isolationism, especially when a country's economy is intervened, directed, or planned by the state; and oftentimes people, whilst recognising the importance of self-reliance, rather limit or reduce the essence to those of an individual initiative whilst letting the community itself be susceptible to outside factors such as unbridled free trade and markets; and from free trade and markets meant the "right to choose", despite the fact how most products are affected by the sameness regardless of labels brought abroad- but the reality is that, these from abroad crippled a once-existing industry while a government, despite recognising the expertise of a manufacturer, chose to stay aloof and "let the invisible hand of the market decide" in these matters related to these sudden influx of products and bankrupted industries.

From this a concerned would think if not say that if a country abundant with resources be at the mercy of multinational exploiters, and a people clinging to the illusion that by letting their resources be taketh over by exploiters for some cheap products, then why on earth to learn about industry? Of what is promoting a country's labor if to see an influx of foreign goods? Is industrialisation in a developing country unlikely in the 21st century if not altogether wrong in the eyes of a neoliberal who asserts dependency on commerce and trade? 

Anyway, going back to the topic, relying mainly on self-reliance while making external assistance subsidiary reflects a better view of building and maintaining a nation's economy, what more of the society. From there it maximises further the expertise, the knowledge of the nation's intellect in nation building, in a way engineers and scientists are engaging in construction, production, invention, setting foundations of an agro-industrialised state alongside workers and peasants, in order to meet the demands of the people with less emphasis on imports, hence, saving foreign reserves and accumulate domestic capital for development.
For again, in Mao Zedong's words saidth:

"Resting in our own strength, and that means regeneration through one's own efforts."

Sounds socialistic isn't it? Especially in citing the late Chairman's words as a quote regarding the need for domestic-based economic development as opposed to dependency on international capital. Even Claro M. Recto, who recognises the country's abundance in natural resources and sufficent labour power, yet still dependent on international capital, stresses the need for domestic-based development particularly through industrialization, as he said:

"In the present age, economic development is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to industrialization. Stagnation and poverty are the alternative to industrialization... A predominantly agricultural economy garnished with a few minor industries spells poverty, unemployment, and the continuation of our colonial status, whereas industrialization and the eradication of the vestiges of a predominantly colonial agricultural economy is the only way out from underproduction, unemployment and poverty."

On those calling self-reliance "xenophobia"
(yet look at the neighbors who did self-reliance evenly)

For sure those who insist the primacy of foreign investment and the right for foreigners to set establishments without the need for tie-ups with locals also cited history as its reference. In fact, there was one commentator even told that because there are "xenophobic Filipinos" calling themselves "nationalists" who "falsely claim that Japan and Thailand maintained their independence because they had no need to adopt foreign best practices"; and from there that commentator even thinks that Filipinos falsely claim that the country should keep foreign influences out in order to succeed as a nation such as preferring Filipino over English as language of instruction, Baybayin over Roman letters for writing, or even serious ones like favoring national industrialization over dependency foreign investments.

If that's the case, then how subjective if not misunderstood especially in referring Filipino nationalists as xenophobes thinking that with those so-called "preferences" meant disdain for things outside. Very few it may be those "xenophobes" amongst nationalists, but these Filipinos, like any other developing Asiatic or Third-Worlder who wished to succeed sustainably and self-sufficiently as a nation is driven by a view that their country has its own resources, labor power, and the will to succeed like those of its neighbors.

In "nationalist China" (Taiwan), prior to its opening, stresses the importance of self reliance in reconstructing their country even for the sake of assuming itself as a "better China" unlike those of its Mainland counterpart.
From there the country's primary importance for long-run growth of its economy was it's commitment to education, beginning with universal elementary education, then expanded to upper level schooling as basic levels of literacy were attained; followed by land reform (which was supported by United States), then it's much-need for industrialisation using existing then-Japanese owned facilities, of fostering just partnerships with foreigners for expertise and assistance, the enticing of then-landed gentries to engage in industry in exchange for their lands, and the mobilisation of its labor power in constructing, maintaining, and producing what was greatly needed by its people.

Even south Korea does the same thought of massive industrialisation especially during the era of Park Chung Hee; From there he had bluntly spurn offers and suggestions from Moneylenders like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank just to pursue a program which aimed to develop the nation's economy through expansion of agriculture and energy industries such as coal and electric power; development of basic industries such as chemical fertilizer, cement, oil refinery, iron, and steel; expansion of social overhead capital including roads, railways, and ports; full utilisation of idle resources including increased employment; Conservation and utilisation of land; export promotion to improve the balance of payments; and serious promotion of science and technology.
Obviously, westerners and easterners had to believe in him, knowing that through his venture may meant creating an alternative to its northern neighbour, whose industrialisation venture was supported by "red" China and the Soviet Union with the latter limited, yet generously provide the needs for its developmental goals. 

And one of Park Chung Hee's feats was the building of the Pohang Steel Mill, which shows how that once-underdeveloped, foreign-aid dependent south Korea can able to pursue a self-reliant direction; and it was also during his era wherein trading companies like Samsung and Lucky Goldstar (LG) pursued the manufacturing sector, leading to what hath known today.

From these Asiatic examples somehow showed that in order to create a stable economy it requires political will, or rather say an application of immense ego-driven ambition to pursue something that can break an existing dominance; although on the other hand, these countries did also curry assistance from its developed counterparts, such as the United States and the European countries, in order to subsidiarily support its intended direction despite its emphasis which was self-reliance. Furthermore, the drive was political not just economic, since "nationalist" China and south Korea asserts itself as counterparts to communist-led Mainland China and north Korea.

Conclusion

Despite these statements shown in this post very few would take it in an affirming manner. For knowing that the system continues to cling in an economic policy benefiting the few, it will always been appearing "advantageous" that so-called free market, trade, and reliance on foreign investments thinking that with those developed countries it meant a ready market for a developing, agricultural-dependent country like the Philippines. 

But despite that impression, reality says otherwise: who's benefiting from that dependency on international capital: is it the commons or the oligarchs? Why on earth not to pursue industrialisation and emphasis on self reliance but instead depend on the whims of the international market and capital? Why to skip the need for heavy industry in a time people are yearning for modern stuff? Fine that these apologists looked at the example such as those of Japan during their heydays, but, those things are meant to be provisional if not temporary:
For despite Meiji Japan accommodating foreign support (including those of investments), there had been a surge in the creation of monopolies. This was in part due to state intervention, and these monopolies served to allow Japan to become a world economic power. The state itself owned some of the monopolies, and others were owned by the Zaibatsu (Japanese Industrial and Financial conglomerates). These monopolies managed the central core of the economy, with other aspects being controlled by the government ministry appropriate to the activity, including the National Central Bank and the Imperial family. This economic arrangement was in many ways similar to the corporatist models of European fascists.

And the Philippines? Again ever since 1946 or before 1935, a mendicant government that chose to be dependent on its lord, if not clinging on the illusion of growth without serious development. Oligarchs, clinging to their age-old interests, aren't like those of the Zaibatzus or Chaebols given their half-hearted if not totally disdain for industrialisation although very few amongst them did heed calls for self-reliance like Araneta with his Flour Mill, Soriano with his San Miguel, and Concepcion with his engagement in building air conditioners. The administrators did heed the calls of Recto, Lichauco, and some of the patriots who wished for economic independence; but the domineering thought of Friedman, Mises, Hayek, the illusions peddled by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and other multinational moneylenders, made domestic development stunted.
Although true that infrastructure for storage and movement of goods/services as well as the hot flow of cash coming from both investments and remittances did brought development, does it proceeded to the important societal needs such as reviving industry and agriculture and empowering communities benefiting workers and peasantfolks? Obviously not if not partially yes- and that "yes" as rather for the sake of impression, if not outright propaganda.

Perhaps whatever these free-trade apologists and agents of international capital insists, they should realise that the country needs to have its own direction for economic development. And expect that there are some who would have raised the question that if the Philippines carries out the policy of self-reliance, particularly those of industrialisation, other sectors such as trade and commerce would diminish its importance; that it will scare foreign investors, that it may cause harms way in regards to economic relations between the Philippines and other countries.

But the question is: What if it didn't?