• Warning!

    Some articles contain revolutionary terms that others might find offensive. Common street language is sometimes employed.
  • And!

    If you came here thinking I'm writing things that I think people will love, and nothing else, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. This site is about facts and realities, how I interpret them. Yours are welcome, don't cower, don't be shy.
  • It is here free!

    Right of Reply is good. But the proposed law is, in fact, already rendered obsolete by here! Bring it out in here why somebody made a mistake of labeling you a moron.
  • Recent Comments

    The Joint Aquino… on ARMM, Peacetalks & Malacañ…
    The Joint Aquino… on Peace and Unity in Mindan…
    Rod on Classroom Backlog, Rice Import…
    backlink checker on What’s with Mr Garcia…
    doroastig on New Year!
    doroastig on New Year!
    RLTJ'sRod on Classroom Backlog, Rice Import…
  • On Comments

    This site does not believe in comment moderation. However, comment should be regular in form that Akismet will not hold them as spam. As a rule, it is policy of this site to delete any or all "spam" for web system's protection.
  • Dont end here!

  • Do you know that

    If all your life you have always aspired and you think the one on top is no good, you must think again. Maybe you are no better. Or maybe you look worse!.. Or, why not think God. You're good but he loves you. You could end up that egotist stooge you hate in the mirror.
  • A small thief and a big thief are the same. They are both thieves... Uh uh, OK, we have a small thief and a big thief - they are not exactly the same... size.
  • People don't know good until they have seen bad, or they don't know bad, did not have any idea about bad, until they've seen good. Before all them could be hollow strings of words. [Tumen's doctrine]
  • Gagged people can sometimes be as dangerous as the non-reasonable. [Right of Reply]
  • One thing is always better than nothing. [When hope is gone; Kapit sa patalim.]
  • There will always be something better or advanced than the thing. [Law of Dialectic]
  • Putting down good or perceived good you lose. If good puts you down you lose as well. Try to be good. [Politics and propaganda]
  • Tyranny and rape belong to the same set of mind. They believe and look at themselves as too good.
  • When a person has lost credibility the best thing for him is to stop issuing statements because politically he has already lost any and all arguments. [Everything to a person - Integrity]
  • If truth can bring you down you must be stood on weak or false ground. If lie can bring you down then you must be stood on worse than scum!
  • Have you ever thought

    "True" church or true religion is a squabble between theists. Whatever it is people believe in must be of no problem to God. I bet He can speak very well the language of any man - any creature, actually. [A Universal God]
  • A man's gain may be another man's loss. A man's happiness may be another man's woe. A man's ease may be another man's sacrifice and misery.[Expropriation/Profiteering/Bureaucrat capitalism/Government corruption]
  • To err is human. That’s why it is not good habit to drop God’s name just to drive the self. It might be standing stinking shit aside Him. [Cashing-in on the gullible]

  • Man has sometimes relegated God to a mule. Religion and State need to separate. [Religions in politics]
  • Heroes are remembered for their greatness. The bad sides of them are all in the hidden files and folders. Villains are the other way around. Nobody is perfect.
  • Except for being a figure of speech, nothing is really absolute.
  • Some people are hard headed. They cannot be told once. Well, try and try again, who knows. [Big names that flopped in politics]

Reflections of Little Known Goliath to our Northwest

Obscured to the world for many decades, People’s Republic of China [PRC] has been of great interest to many. Here’s some observation I find interesting. I submitted a few comments in there that I realized might appear long but that I felt were really short or lacking for the matter. I decided to collect them back to create a post in here:

I think Communists found themselves a little bit quandary at some crossroads not found in any of their old books. Situations nowhere seen in an inbreed ideological world.

…old Communist revolutionary songs with their high-minded lyrics are taking the country’s public spaces and television screens by storm.

Arts and culture have always been under firm watch and control by Communist states. As the world has known, never have they been used tyrannically by Jiang Qing, Mao’s widow,  and her faction for political ends – unparalleled witch hunting and persecution – attacking anything and anyone tagged as bourgeois – in a program called Cultural Revolution.

Lifted from Google search: Jiang Qing

So, there is a revival of the old days. If it is to go back in time and to stick in there, I think, is equally totally getting lost. It is also futile. The past was all about a struggle against feudal and colonial oppressive rule for the Chinese masses. That struggle found expressions in arts. The situation no longer [exactly] exists today. Something that is now imaginary. More in the side of hollow strings of words to a new generation. Those arts are just history. Present day people tend to buy arts that reflect them or their situation in real-time. Maybe the Beatles’ Hard Days Night might sell better in there, today.

Same Old Books, Same Everything

Same old books, same everything, different perspectives. The old ruled has become the new ruler, the former strugglers have become the present struggled.

Well, maybe the purpose is to try to remind, or should I say tell, the new generation of the masses where they have come from and just ‘be thankful and eat what is there on the table’.

‘…against [ ] oppressive rule, there’s the double edge pointed at some if not the selves. Old art may project different picture or interpretation in the minds of a ruled people – modern forms of oppression perceived by the ruled masses – as different to the interpretation of the new rulers.

Chinese Communist Party [CCP]  sees itself as on top of a continuous revolution. Any conflict coming outside of the party are viewed as forces of reaction. But objectivity is, a sure legitimate continuous struggle is only that of the masses who are forever ruled.

Communists see society as something that is class-dictated. State is defined as an instrument of a class [Marxism]. If it is not a dictatorship of the [working class] then it must be a dictatorship of the [owners of the means] and no way escaping that situation. One of the biggest problem is that it goes further to say that state now has the right to dictate the people. So we see why some Lady Gaga songs cannot be played there.  They do not want their people to hear them.

No, regulating arts and culture is not stranger in a liberal – democratic society. Comparing societies, one difference is in the degree of regulating them by governments.  One social structure is considered tight while the other is considered lax. One takes it upon itself to determine for everyone that Lady Gaga’s song is nonsense, while the other leaves it to everyone to determine if Lady Gaga’s song makes sense or not.

I think PRC is at one crossroad where either they should usher modern liberal democracy in or they must suppress it. CCP may not like it but as Mao himself saw, it is people who make history. [One translation of that is: people made leaders and it is not the leaders who made the people. Leaders are those who fitted people.]

Maoism is much part of present day CCP ideology. Any repudiation of Mao are more on the interpretation or the application of what he had laid.

Lifted from Google search: Chinese people

Communists believe in democracy. They have their idea of that they call “Democratic centralism” [Maoist]. The Western world has its own idea of democracy. I’m sure Chinese masses have their own idea, too. And it is that of the masses that counts, which worries the state.

There would be no conflict of ruler and ruled in the theory of democratic centralism – from the masses to the masses, which is republicanism from certain perspective. That sounds harmonious. But harmony exists only in the book. Fact is, we see conflicts existing between the rulers and the ruled. State happens to be also expropriation. That, itself, is just one of the many conflicts between rulers and ruled. Issues out of that conflict are usually how much in taxes and, more  important,  how public money is appropriated.

I think now is more in the side of a futile attempt by forces of reaction to freeze the world. When there is conflict of ruler and ruled, it is the consensus of the masses that prevails in the end.

People make history. That is one tenet of Maoism. That is also true in the liberal-democratic world. It’s been history of humanity.

Right now it would be a war of shaping the mind of that people. In one side, we have seen authorities trying to win that war with arts and culture as instruments. Arts and culture are themselves contested grounds between rulers and ruled.  Cyberspace is a new ground added in there.

A Party that is run by first generation revolutionaries like Mao and Deng might be gauged by the books. Today’s leaders in China [its bureaucracy] are born and grown in the time when the CCP has been in control. In short most of them were born sort of privileged elites, born of a different time. I guess, only those who know them and know China today, know what really goes in their mind. Nothing escapes evolution.

If there is indeed a growing revival of revolutionary days fervor within Chinese leadership then I guess another thing is to lean away from late day experiences, say of the Russians. They are gone past a situation when all they need is to refresh and take any start other than their present day situation.

Surely Chinese leaders have been watching the world.  While Russia was ahead in socialism, the Chinese appear advanced ideologically and politically getting their cues from the Russians. A part of them apparently would like to apply the brakes to the direction that the Russians took of which present day China has a similar version, too, for one thing.

PRC is a single-party political system. Inner party struggle is normal and natural.  They are closed-door matters. That would be to protect the prestige of the only party. When inner party struggle has gone out the door they are at the level of extreme sharp antagonisms, like the Mao-Lin Biao and the Mao-Deng Xiaoping conflicts.

Marxist Communist View of Culture

Culture is regarded not separate and independent of economics and politics. So we see a form of culture. It has behind it some expressions in economics. It will also have forms in politics. They are all viewed inter-related and inter-active. A liberal culture will have a liberal economy and a liberal politics, for example. Or, a liberal economy and politics have a liberal culture. A feudal culture comes with a feudal economy and a feudal politics. You see one, you see all or you can imagine their forms.

Stated another way, economics and politics created and promoted a culture that in return promotes that kind of political economy. Idea cannot be independent of matter.

Concerted efforts to eradicate and or to create a culture have been practiced by communist run states. In the Liberal world they are all let go in some way. What prevails is what it is, of the real world, of the real-time. What prevails is the product of a natural-material world of time.

I think more focus is on economics. It is the hardest of real objects. Art and  culture stem from it. So do political ideas.

They are calling for more equal distribution of wealth even at the expense of slower economic growth. They are attacking privileges of any kind.

There’s the factor of economics. Unequal distribution of wealth. I think that would be the problem confronting Chinese bureaucracy and State. In Capitalism, landowner [capitalist] expropriated its workers so he enjoys cars, mansions, revelries, you name it. At the extreme we see individuals who have too much while at the other end we see individuals  who are too deprived.

The theory of Socialism is: [owner of the means of production] is eliminated so workers enjoy their fruits. Workers own everything administered for them by the state. Sounds good. But that’s a theory. Russia has failed the theory of socialism. Around seven decades of Communist socialist rule failed to eradicate poverty. It failed to stop decadence like prostitution closely associated to that. At a time when western prostitutes earn a low of $35.00, their Russian counterparts were worth a used Levis jeans @ $20.00 brand new, or a pack of Marlboro cigarettes @ $1.25 a pack.

Reality is: At the surface of it, Socialist state now wants to own the world, go to the moon, own the universe, so to say. All that carried [too far] at the expense of [sacrificing] the workers. OK, Let us tone it down, there are things that are unnecessary but they must posses to survive. In like manner that a woman who does not believe in cosmetics spends a lot for them just so she will fit.

Why would people be attacking privileges of any kind? Privileges are qualities of life enjoyed by some when they should be enjoyed by all. State has failed to deliver quality services to all. At the extreme, masses would rather kill the practices since they cannot have them.

But, I don’t think people anywhere will take forever for a sacrifice. There appear symptoms of discontent. Suppression will only mount the pressure building up. [Lesson from North Africa, perhaps?] In a nation comprised of a billion people, awesome lots can be imagined from all that.

Cashing In On the Gullible – Nationalism

Liberalism is associated with freedom, with human rights. Like, man has right to travel and to move freely, free of political restrictions. That man should be free to be anywhere he [they want] to be. That’s the human spirit moving towards oneness, folks. In fact, advanced countries have been moving towards that goal. In regions where countries are about equal in potentials, usually people will want to travel for reasons except economic opportunism. For a start some countries no longer require visa of their neighbors.

But those countries don’t extend that policy to all.  This has little or nothing to do with race or nationalism. The reason is obvious; they will be swarmed and swamped by the third world that are fleeing their country mostly for economic reason, which by itself is deemed nothing wrong except for the many negative complications that it will cause the host country.

Nationalism and the Filipino People

Nationalism has its deep root at race.  It is one recognized and acceptable form of racism actually. It is a norm by present-day people. Simply and nicely defined, nationalism is one’s love for own country and its people.

nationalism [násh’nəlizəm] noun

  1. desire for political independence: the desire to achieve political independence, especially by a country under foreign control or by a people with a separate identity and culture but no state of their own
  2. patriotism: proud loyalty and devotion to a nation
  3. excessive devotion to nation: excessive or fanatical devotion to a nation and its interests, often associated with a belief that one country is superior to all others

nationalist, noun adjective

Nationalism is one popular political issue. Adolph Hitler rode on it. So did Mao Zedong and all other revolutionary movements. They have no monopoly of it, though, because everybody going for power somehow rode, or hopes to ride, on that popular matter, too. Who in politics does not in any way?

President Elpidio Quirino had “Filipino first policy” for his trademark.  Even media, those which are obsessed about ratings, employ them… focusing on race where the matter is in fact irrelevant or needless. Filipino is one of the most repeated words of shows like Wowowe which is actively promoting Filipino. Of singers and songs, there are a lot of them. And ex-President Joseph Estrada says he is running for President this 2010 “…para sa masang Filipino.” Manny Pacquiao, behind the line “dala ko ang pangarap ng bawat Filipino” was not outdone. I guess it must have sounded more preposterous if the ad says dala ko ang pangarap ng bawat tao.  [He is the current supreme human in his category, actually.] But why did not they just say “dala ko ang  pangarap ng bawat isa sa inyo.” And, cannot a commercial product be sold on its  own merits by him?  🙂 Things sold by their own merits or they stayed because they delivered, mind you.

Filipino is a word that has evolved. It means of the Philippines, its people. During colonial time it was a term applied to island-born Spaniards and Spanish mestizos to differentiate from Spain-born or full-blooded Spaniards.  Of  no  Spanish blood were referred to as Indios.

Ok, one thing good in promoting Filipino [synonymous Bayan] in the country is because the country is composed of many ethnic groups. Promoting Filipino erodes tribalism or Philippine regionalism. But this has to reconcile with Philippine commitment to the world – man’s commitment to the human race itself. Pushed or carried too far, Filipino [or whatever nationality] boils down to what it really is – bare racism by naked racists behind it.

Nationalism is purely a political issue. By invoking or promoting nationalism, one is in fact  involving  the self in a political exercise, one is aware of it or not. And except for being political, nationalism is irrelevant in many matters, actually. Let’s take creation of more jobs and alleviation of poverty in the country, for example. Does the color of money, the color of people, the imaginary lines of the world, or the political lines drawn in the map, matter in there? As we can see clearly, the answer is no. If there are relevant issues in there, they are about social justice, social-economic-environmental impacts, or anything other than race or nationality.

Nationalism is behind protectionism which is considered counter-progressive and against consumers’ interest. It is against freedom of competition. It is  about protection of industries that might  not be competitive and/or are incompetent [in  price and in quality of products or services].   There might be legitimate issues but, again, definitely they must have nothing to do with race or nationality, and  politics – meaning politicking.  [Nobody escapes politics.]

politics [póllətiks] noun

  1. theory and practice of government: the theory and practice of forming and running organizations connected with government (takes a singular verb)
  2. policymaking activity: activity within a political party or organization that is concerned with debate and the creation and carrying out of distinctive policies rather than merely the administration of the state (takes a singular or plural verb)
  3. [omitted by this blog]
  4. [omitted by this blog]
  5. [omitted by this blog]

In the other hand because of the rise of anti-racism, some may drop mention of race or nationality yet may have trace or smack of them.

Talking about race, I’m reminded of dormitory life when I was a young student in Cebu. Ilonggos were like birds of same feathers, me among them there.  In the other side was the Bisaya block composed of Cebuano, Waray, Boholano and minorities from Mindanao. I remember the mutual ridicule, dislike and mistrust between the two blocks. It was a situation that existed before I came, so there’s no telling who started what. I guess tribalism was already a way of life even before everyone there was born. Like they say, racism begets racism. Now, that reminds me of Adolph Hitler, the Jews and by-gone history.  It might have been the Ilonggos if not the Bisayans. Or, it might have been the Chinese but incidentally it was the Jews – the Jews and Adolph Hitler, and him  against the world. I mean ethnic cleansing can happen when racists collide.

Tribalism has become taboo in national politics. We already have people from minority ethnic groups who made it in our national elections. Today it would be most stupid for a political aspirant to even mention one’s regionalism [same as religion] in public. Nobody won national election for declaring one is an Ilocano, an Ilonggo, a Bisaya, a Waray, a Moro, a Chinese, whatever, to the nation i the manner like he is proud of it. Promotion of one’s race may also be promotion of its counterparts. Racism is self-isolationism. And when racism is generated, any one is small against a gang of all, thus, is at the losing end.

Every political figure without exception comes from a certain tribe. And political observers usually already knew who is what from gossips. Nobody can do anything about his their origin. And everybody is expected to win in their region. They are accepted and acceptable realities in Philippine politics. Matters end there since race was never made an issue, has become non-issue in politics today. If we look at members of minorities who made it nationally they are well adapted and well-integrated. Nothing indicated them separated from all the rest. That feeling for oneness is reciprocated.

Going back to Nationalism which is a higher form of tribalism, it makes people [no statistic of them] feel good inside. People can be made happy, angry, laugh, or cry, by it. But while Philippine nationalism has its sharp edge pointed at tribalism, it has a double edge that is pointed at the world. Imperialism is no different. It is nationalism pointed at the world, pushed too far to the point of being  unfair or unjust.

Well, a hundred years or a millennium from now, the word nationality will probably mean permanent residence,  address, while nationalism would be funny silly or anything. And nationalist, boiling down to itself, will probably be synonymous with racist that in street lingo today means pig. Actually, there are people who believe that that day has come long time ago. Some of them are maybe playing along with politics when some of them perhaps have their tongues firmly in check. And, yes, there are  ones who simply love spelling things out.

Every word has its use, or is intended to be used. But next time you hear that word Filipino [or any race] mentioned where it is in fact needless and can be omitted or supplanted without losing any point or thought, well, we have a politicking politician there, folks. Or, maybe it’s just another of those… umm…nationalist walking around.

I think politicians should be riding on anti-racism instead. It’s a more popular universal thing that’s in today. Nobody with mind enough loves a racist anymore.

What is my nationality? I am a Filipino. That’s something I can’t do anything about. I’m a proud Filipino if you’ll ask me about that… a proud person actually, an individual with my own personal identity, merits, and demerits  if I screwed up. 🙂

block quotations are from:  Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Related article

Cory Aquino a victim of “insensitive” US TV joke

Ideologies Then and Now, the World and the Philippines

Man, by nature, must be freedom loving ever since dawn of civilizations. Democracy is probably the oldest known ideology. Another ideology, Liberalism, became notable in the 18th century.

While Democracy and Liberalism are two distinct philosophies, they have big similarities so that early movements by progressives in Europe, like the French Revolution in the 18th century, have been referred to as Liberal–Democratic.  The Filipino propaganda movement that culminated in the Philippine revolution of 1896 was of that character.

Everything evolves so do ideologies and philosophies. Democracy and Liberalism yesterday and today are not really exactly the same. [The use of the word democracy more often refers to the political system, while liberalism usually refers to ideas.]

The 19th century saw the birth and rise of Marxism. This ideology is a branch-off of Liberalism and Democracy. Marxism is quite similar to them except that it is keen on social classes, social class conflicts and social  class struggles.

Karl Marx [1818 – 1883] came in the time of the Industrial revolution. He called the new and emerging economy as Capitalism. He saw only two social classes in a capitalist society: I. the wage earners that he called Proletariat, and 2. the owners of the means of production that he called Bourgeoisie, which is a word that was associated with “middle class” during the Feudal era.

That human history is about classes and class conflicts that caused societies to change i.e. that because of slave-master conflicts, slave societies gradually transformed into Feudal societies. Slave–master relations became peasant-landlord relationship. That Feudalism in turn gave rise to Capitalism. Peasant-landlord relations became worker-capitalist [employee-employer] relationship. That Capitalism will give rise to another system which he called Socialism.

Karl Marx defined State as an instrument of a class [has always been an instrument of a class, and will always be an instrument of a class]. That class struggle will end only with the end of classes, or in a classless society –  in an envisioned system he called Communism, the ultimate end of socialism.

While Marx himself favored armed overthrow of states, armed struggle is deemed not Marxist law. It was a strategy in their situation. It should be noted that there was no free election like  we have today during his time, or in the time of Vladimir Lenin in Russia and of Mao Zedong in China.

Karl Marx, being a staunch materialist, had history of Slave and Feudal societies from where he based his projections and concepts for the future –  plotting the path of social evolution from capitalism to socialism, and on. The path of social evolution was always been littered with blood.

Marxism is class-partisan. It identifies itself with the working class because it sees this class as a destiny class. In the early days of Marxism the future appeared as one of machines, their owners, and their workers. The symbol for the working class then was strength. Little was seen of the developing “white collar” workers and the shift of the world from ‘strength’ to ‘intelligence’.

In the time of Karl Marx, socialism was only a theory because the first Socialist state, Russia, came to exist only in 1917, followed by China in 1949 – long after his death.

Marxism makes interesting social political study as it affects the whole world. Its influence is global and has dominated more than half of the world today.

One  development in Marxism is the split of forces known as Revisionism. These movements were called Social Democratic [see Eduard Bernstein, 1850-1932. Also, Karl Johann Kautsky 1854-1938]. They are one with Marxism except for the means of achieving end. That at the rate of the initial advances gained by democracy, [right to education, right to vote, and human rights] Social Democrats foresaw armed struggle as becoming unnecessary. With the advances of the industrial revolution, the growth in size of the working class is inevitable. With all that, the political-economic  powers of the Bourgeoisie will recede while advance the political-economic powers of the Proletariat. The bourgeoisie will naturally be eaten up by the proletariat  in the process of social evolution. Revolution in the other hand aims at jumping short what naturally would take time for social change to complete a leap. In the case of slave and some feudal societies, it took millenniums to complete.  Russian and Chinese Marxist revolutions were leaps to Socialism from semi-feudal and Feudal conditions, skipping or aborting the stage of Capitalism.

With Marxist progressives came adversarial words like liberal-bourgeois and bourgeois liberalism. Attributed to them is the set of mind that is centered in the individual or the self with little or no regard for the community. I think Exceptionalism is an extension of them… a lingering spirit of diminishing old  form of liberalism that has not gone extinct yet.

Modern day political contest is a game of numbers. Indeed, will come a time in modern democracy when the so-called bourgeoisie will be at the mercy of the so-called proletariat. Maybe social minority can fall back to tyrannical measures but they are always  futile exercises in the end. Just  a matter of time as seen  in history.

Leftist struggle in the Philippines is basically Maoist. Mao Zedong [1893 – 1976] was a deviation from orthodox [proletariat vs bourgeoisie] Marxism during his time. Mao identified China’s situation as mainly a struggle of Chinese peasants against the Feudal lords. Philippine leftist struggle has been patterned after the Chinese experience.

Applied in legal political struggle, I think peasants versus landlords will not even win seats in the municipality level, much more win seats in district and national levels, in present-day Philippines. It is an issue that has become too sectarian within a sector. It has become obsolete in a diminished feudalism like present-day Philippines. Peasants, to mean landless tenants and serfs, are practically imaginary characters today.

Presently, in the agricultural sector, I think the issue should revolve around advancement of agriculture, something blanket for the whole agricultural sector, which must reconcile with consumers’ interest as they conflict. And within that, is also the class conflict between the  miserable farm workers and the landowners many of whom are not really doing great, actually. Since the mode of production is Capital and no longer Feudal,  Landlords are also imaginary characters.

Let’s face it, why can’t Philippine Leftists win regular seats in congress? I think it is because they are associated with bloody social movements as in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia  that are typical Leninist-Maoist’s, and which scared many Filipinos. Proletariat class-dictatorship to take the place of Bourgeois class-dictatorship is still dictatorship. Dictatorship or just the mere prospect of any of them is no longer popular where democracy has grown roots and gained grounds.

Legal political struggle of leftists in the Philippines was actually designed to support their primary form of struggle, which is to overthrow the state by rebellion. In labor exercises, demands sound good but are non-realistic. Like a two or three-fold increase to the daily wages for example, they usually result to denial by government that gave leftists the opportunity to cite as the futility of a legal struggle.

There is a drawback to that – failure of the movement to deliver gains for the masses of workers.

Social democratic

Pure democratic struggle of the working class, in the other hand, means bearing with the system throughout time . Fighting for what is possible or achievable only in present time.

In legal political contest, definitely ideologies belong or better be left in the classrooms. Legal political contest is basically all about what will sell – real problems of the people in real-time and solutions to them. That is what present day democracy is all about. And it can be compatible with any social system.

%d bloggers like this: