Time for the Philippines’ Carlos Yulo moment (Or, can we get a double-gold medal in making a better nation than this?)

In a way, Carlos Yulo’s second gold medal at the Paris Olympics became a liability of sorts. One gold, the first by a Southeast Asian at this edition of the games, was huge in and of itself. It would guarantee that his name would ring a bell for several weeks in the international sporting community. But two golds? That brought down the Bercy Arena. He became a living legend in an instant. In Tokyo 2020, the Philippines waited for one century for Hidilyn Diaz to win the nation’s first ever gold medal at the games. Then came Yulo, who brought for the Philippines not just one, but two of the item. The event, then, was epic.

Coverage of the news understandably became frenzied. There was the blonde-haired girlfriend greeting the new toast of the town in Paris. Then there was the afternoon drama of the Yulo Family’s internal discord, with some details around its monetary origins. But over the weeks what really became a favorite topic for the public, as covered too by the press, were the jaw-dropping rewards that Yulo stood to reap as a result of his Olympic feat. We learned that he would get – a condo unit, a lifetime supply of food and other services, a band’s offer to perform free for his wedding, millions of cash, and a brand new SUV.

And then slowly, but surely, it appeared that the nation forgot the significance of what it all meant initially in the first place.

But this would be a huge mistake. Instead of focusing on the personal material rewards going Yulo’s way, perhaps we might all be better served if we used this moment for something closer to home. That is, use the lessons of the moment to somehow become a better Philippines. That we can still build a better society for all of us who share this nation. Because Yulo’s win is our win. But it is our win only if we can make the best use of it – if it can give us some direly needed reminders in these times.

First, Yulo’s win should remind us that, perhaps, we, as a people, are still very much in this larger game called nation-building. That all hope is not lost.

One would think the point of having Olympians in our midst as a people is to remind us: that we have it in ourselves, each of us, to be better. That day by day, we can conquer our own personal best.

We can draw inspiration from Yulo himself. Who was he? Carlos Yulo was a boy from our national capital who was born into modest means, but who made the most of the opportunities that were available to him. And with the bare minimum of a national sporting infrastructure that could support his growth, but with a lot of talent and passion for his cause, plus some crucial outside help, he achieved something big.

Perhaps we need that in the context of the kind of nation we have become over the past decades. A nation where an increasing portion of the population in recent years have identified as poor, and with the direness of the situation masked by seemingly loose official definitions of poverty. Perhaps we can still make the most of the existing functioning infrastructure, if barely, of our government and the other sectors of our society to, who knows, once and for all tackle the problem of national industrialization?

Perhaps then, as a people, we can aspire to get a gold medal in the subject of understanding national poverty with the aim of solving it? Perhaps then we can aspire to get a gold medal in crafting a nationally coordinated development policy with the backbone of redistributing societal wealth through correct taxes from the wealthy and massive social services for all?

 

Second, Yulo’s win should remind us that there is, after all, still one thing that we hold together in common – a common identity with, perhaps, a common dream – which is nothing but the success of this country.

We all have something in common with Carlos Yulo. It is the flag stitched on the garment that he wears every time he and our athletes compete on the global stage. It is the flag of a people who, to describe us as “having been through a lot” will be quite an understatement. And the point here is not to raise any kind of ethnic or blindly patriotic argument, but simply to recognize that, for better or worse, with the current international setup of the world being divided into countries implementing laws, we happen to live in one called the Philippines – named after some European royal who in whose honor the place was named by founding colonists. And though it is a country with many different regions and languages that those colonists suppressed, it is a country whose inhabitants are called now – Filipinos. And that it would be nice to see this general category of people, these Filipinos, succeed in something.

Because, of course, usually it is the easiest thing in the world to forget this identity, if not shun this identity altogether. Because again, in normal days, or those days when no Filipino is winning a medal at some international event, what really does being “Filipino” mean? What is our image in the international stage? We all know those are many things, with many of them not exactly flattering. But at least for these past few weeks the world can add “excellent athlete” to that image. Maybe with Yulo’s help, we can start recovering some of the pride, and use it as a stepping stone for even greater things – the way Yulo uses the springboard to jump so high and execute magic in vault competition.

Or, forget the international stage. Just look at things back home, and look at the way we have done even the theoretically most straightforward of projects supposedly for the benefit of our people, and find no success there. The jeepney modernization effort had the aim of replacing all our traditional jeepneys with better, more comfortable, lower emission vehicles. It had one problem – in the process, our officials seemingly forgot to give the fullest support to the small-time jeepney owners who stood to lose in the new arrangement, because for them modernization meant losing control of what little power they already had over their fate just to hand this over to “cooperatives” (a.k.a. big groups that are ultimately ruled by bigger transport industry players). One of the roots of the problem then is a seeming lack of a national approach to the issue, and the recognition that majority of the nation are in fact small-time folks.

As the great Conrado de Quiros once said, if it took a steady accumulation of national vices to make this kind of mess, then maybe all it would take is a steady accumulation of virtues to make a success. Maybe, infused with the sudden feeling of patriotism and national pride among our ranks, we can finally move this country forward.

 

But really, there is in Yulo’s Olympic triumph a lesson that should shine above everything else. And it is something that gets lost in the fixation over the material things that Yulo gained and continues to gain.

To understand that lesson, we might do well to go back to the whole point of why the Olympic games are held. “The original values of Olympism,” its website says, quoting from the Olympic Charter, “were to ‘encourage effort’, ‘preserve human dignity’ and ‘develop harmony.” They are now expressed as encouraging people to be the best they can be, with respect for others, and celebrating friendship. “This is the idea of setting your rivalries aside. There is more that unites us than divides us.”

And so, perhaps this is a good time to remind ourselves – that, even more grand than the grandness of individual achievement and personal success, there is in fact a unifying narrative of common achievement that is as good an aim to aspire to as any. That, in the end may be what's most important in life. Some might say it is the point of having lived itself – to have worked with others to see how far we can go as a people, together. Some might say this is in fact the only triumph that matters.

We do not live in this world forever. At some point, a great name like Yulo’s will be forgotten. Especially as we live in a world where the very foundations of civilizational existence are in severe challenge due to gargantuan existential threats, like climate change, environmental degradation and social inequality. At this point, it is debatable whether humanity will still have fully functioning societies centuries hence, some say less. Not to mention having many more future Olympic games.

And yet, as we go along with our daily lives, we seem to have become oblivious to the threats and the bigger picture. Every single day the agenda seems to be – beat your own personal best so that you can go on enriching yourself. This year, beat your own personal annual income from last year for the benefit of your own self, your own kids, your own family, your own clan. Think only of yourself.

This is the narrative that the coverage of the endowments for Yulo seems to promote – that the point of participating in the games are the rewards resulting from personal achievement. The narrative has suddenly become one of the age-old accumulation of personal riches for just one man. But of course it makes perfect sense. The Big Money showering him with these gifts all have a business stake in creating a world that makes people aspire – individually, for maximum revenue impact for their companies – for just these sorts of riches. Even if the picture of reality is far from what’s being advertised.

In fact the sudden attention from Big Business in Yulo’s name is curious, given the known general lack of support for Filipino athletes during all those times they were still struggling as unknown individuals – even from the private sector who apparently had all these money all along. Yulo’s biggest break himself came not when some major corporation decided to invest fully in his career. It came when an unknown Japanese instructor saw potential in him but that, recognizing the limits imposed by training facilities in the Philippines (or the lack of it), decided to bring Yulo to Japan. It is also a valid question to ask, as the private companies shower Yulo with gifts, what is the current state of their own employees? Are they religious in providing them with both statutory and non-statutory benefits? How are their labor policies? Can they, too, win gold medals in the way they treat their workers?

Carlos Yulo’s triumph should remind us of one very clear picture of our societies. It is one that, unfortunately for most of our citizens, does not in fact encourage them to be the best they could be. One where, in the daily drag of undignified long-hour commute to go to work, establishing friendship with fellow commuters might be the farthest from their minds. This is something that we seem to have lost. Which is understandable: as life in our country has taken a turn for the worse, our natural instinct has been to find ways on how our own personal families can survive day by day, and to apply our own individual solutions to the large-scale challenges. So that faced with the rising problem of traffic, our solution has been to accumulate more cars – something which the government fully supports. Faced with the rising problem of road rage due to traffic, apparently much of our solution has been to brandish guns to the face of the enemy. And in our most recent presidency before Marcos, an estimated 10,000 people were summarily executed, their lives taken without any semblance of due process – just because they were accused of being drug users. That is most certainly not the way to earn a gold medal in running a society in the eyes of the world.

Carlos Yulo’s win should remind us, in a way, that all our strivings, all our sacrifices, all our deepest desires for personal success – that these are nothing if these are not shared by us all. That real greatness in human life comes not, ultimately, in its individual form, but rather in the collective triumphs that we all share.

Let us use the Carlos Yulo moment to dream again. That we can still become a better Philippines. That we can still build a “better” society for us all. Let us use it to remind us that we are, in fact, perhaps a people who can move things forward, despite all the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Let us think that maybe we are not a hopeless nation. Maybe there is still hope. If one of from among us can do great things, maybe many others among us can, too.

 

A Conversation with ChatGPT: Capitalism, Socialism, and Social Change

Good news, comrades. We now feature interviews with special guests on this blog. ChatGPT has gladly volunteered to be our first! Please enjoy!

One Breath Left: Let's talk about politics

ChatGPT: Sure, what specific political topic would you like to discuss?

OBL: What is humanity's current system of material provisioning called

ChatGPT: The current system of material provisioning for humanity is generally referred to as capitalism. It is characterized by a market-based economy in which goods and services are produced and exchanged for profit.

OBL: How does it work

ChatGPT: Capitalism is based on the idea of private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. Businesses, ranging from small companies to large corporations, compete in the marketplace to sell their products to consumers. Prices are determined by supply and demand, and individuals are free to buy and sell goods and services as they see fit. The goal is to create wealth through economic growth and the accumulation of profits, which is incentivized by the potential for personal financial gain. Government intervention in the economy is often limited to regulation aimed at maintaining a level playing field and protecting consumers.

OBL: What is referred to as the 1%

ChatGPT: The "1%" refers to the top 1% of income earners in a society, typically used as a shorthand to represent the concentration of wealth and power among a small group of people. In many countries, the top 1% of income earners control a disproportionate amount of the wealth and resources, while a significant portion of the population struggles to make ends meet. The term has become associated with income and wealth inequality, and is often used in political discourse to highlight the divide between the rich and the rest of society.

OBL: What is the relationship of the 1% to capitalism

ChatGPT: The relationship between the "1%" and capitalism is a complex and controversial one. Capitalism, as a system, is meant to reward hard work and success, and the "1%" are often seen as embodying this ideal. However, the concentration of wealth and power among a small number of people is also a defining feature of capitalism, and the "1%" are often criticized for having an outsized influence on the economy and political system.

Critics of capitalism argue that the system is inherently unequal, and that the accumulation of wealth and power by the "1%" is a natural consequence of the pursuit of profits and the exploitation of labor. Supporters of capitalism argue that the "1%" is a result of the success of entrepreneurs and that their wealth creates jobs and drives economic growth.

Overall, the relationship between the "1%" and capitalism is a complex and multifaceted one, reflecting the contradictions and trade-offs inherent in the system.

OBL: What is the current consensus regarding capitalism

ChatGPT: The current consensus regarding capitalism is that it is a deeply polarizing and divisive issue, with opinions varying widely depending on political, social, and economic factors.

On the one hand, capitalism is widely credited with driving economic growth, creating wealth, and providing incentives for innovation and progress. It is seen as a system that rewards hard work, ingenuity, and success, and is often praised for its ability to deliver prosperity and improve standards of living.

On the other hand, capitalism is also widely criticized for its inequalities and failures. It is seen as a system that creates and perpetuates wealth disparities, fails to provide adequate protections for workers and the environment, and leads to instability and crisis. Critics argue that capitalism prioritizes profits over people and the planet, and that it undermines the well-being of society as a whole.

Overall, the consensus regarding capitalism is that it is a flawed but essential system that has both positive and negative impacts, and that requires ongoing reforms and improvements to better serve the needs of all people and the planet.

OBL: What is the essential feature of capitalism

ChatGPT: The essential feature of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. In a capitalist system, individuals and corporations have the freedom to invest in and operate businesses with the goal of generating wealth and profits. Prices for goods and services are determined by supply and demand in the marketplace, and competition among businesses drives innovation and economic growth.

Capitalism is based on the idea that the pursuit of self-interest and profits will lead to the greatest good for society as a whole, as the competition and market forces drive economic efficiency and encourage innovation. However, the system is also characterized by economic and social inequalities, as those who own and control the means of production accumulate wealth and power, while others may struggle to access the resources and opportunities they need to improve their lives.

OBL: Do majority of human beings favor capitalism as a system?

ChatGPT: Opinions on capitalism vary widely among people, and it is difficult to say whether the majority of human beings favor it as a system. There is a large body of research indicating that people's views on capitalism are shaped by a range of factors, including their political beliefs, cultural background, level of education, and personal experiences.

In many developed countries, capitalism is seen as a necessary and effective system for generating wealth and prosperity. However, in recent years, there has been a growing global movement calling for greater regulation and reform of the capitalist system, as well as for alternative economic models that prioritize social justice, equality, and environmental sustainability.

In developing countries, views on capitalism are often more mixed, with many people recognizing its potential to generate economic growth but also experiencing its negative impacts on their communities and the environment.

Overall, it can be said that while capitalism is widely accepted in many parts of the world, there is also growing opposition to the current system, and a growing recognition of the need for reforms to address its failures and inequalities.

OBL: What is the probability that capitalism will be replaced by a system that does not have the flaws thay capitalism has

ChatGPT: It is difficult to predict the probability that capitalism will be replaced by a system that does not have its flaws. Economic systems are complex and are shaped by a wide range of social, political, and economic factors.

In recent years, there has been growing global recognition of the need for reforms to address the inequalities and failures of capitalism, as well as for alternative economic models that prioritize social justice, equality, and environmental sustainability. There is a growing body of thought and action that aims to transition towards more sustainable and equitable economic systems, including movements towards a green economy, cooperative models, and alternative forms of ownership and governance.

However, the transition to a new system is likely to be slow and complex, and will depend on a wide range of political, economic, and social factors, including the willingness of those in power to support change, the ability of alternative models to deliver sustained prosperity and well-being, and the ability of society to mobilize and organize around a common vision.

Overall, while it is difficult to predict the probability of a transition to a new system, it is clear that there is growing recognition of the need for change, and that this momentum is likely to shape the future of the global economy in the coming decades.

OBL: Why did you mention the "willingness of those in power" as a factor

ChatGPT: I mentioned the "willingness of those in power" as a factor because the transition to a new economic system often requires significant political and institutional change. Those in power, including governments, corporations, and wealthy individuals, often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and may resist change if it threatens their wealth, power, or influence.

In order to transition to a new system, it is often necessary to challenge the existing power structures and to build broad-based coalitions that can push for change. This requires the mobilization of popular movements, the development of alternative models and visions, and the support of key actors in government, civil society, and the private sector.

Without the willingness of those in power to support change, it is often difficult to achieve the reforms and transitions needed to build a more equitable and sustainable economic system. Therefore, the willingness of those in power to support change is a critical factor in shaping the future of the global economy.

OBL: Will those in power ever be willing to support change? What can make them do so?

ChatGPT: Whether those in power will be willing to support change depends on a wide range of political, economic, and social factors. Some of the factors that can influence their willingness to support change include:

Pressure from popular movements and civil society: When large numbers of people demand change, those in power may be more likely to respond, especially if they are faced with organized and sustained social movements and campaigns.

Economic and environmental crises: Crises such as financial collapses, ecological disasters, or pandemics can create a sense of urgency and a recognition of the need for change, leading some in power to support reforms.

Political leadership and vision: Visionary political leaders can play a key role in inspiring change and in building broad-based coalitions to support reforms.

The availability of alternative models and visions: When alternative models and visions are developed and proven to work, those in power may be more likely to support change, especially if they see these models as a way to address the pressing challenges of the day.

Changes in global economic and political dynamics: Changes in the global economic and political landscape can create opportunities for reform, as new actors emerge and existing power structures shift.

Overall, it is likely that those in power will be more willing to support change when they face sustained pressure from below, when they recognize the urgency of the challenges facing society, and when they see alternative models and visions as viable and necessary.

OBL: But this 1% that we speak of, who are they? What are their lives like? What do they do on a day to day basis? What are their views?

ChatGPT: The 1% refers to a small group of people who control a large proportion of the world's wealth and resources. This group is often defined as those individuals who hold the top 1% of wealth and income globally.

The lives of the 1% are often characterized by great wealth, privilege, and power. They typically live in upscale neighborhoods, attend exclusive schools and universities, and have access to the best healthcare, travel, and cultural experiences. They often have high-powered careers, either in business, finance, or politics, and may hold significant influence over the direction of their countries and the world.

In terms of their daily activities, the 1% may spend their time managing their wealth and investments, engaging in philanthropy and social causes, pursuing leisure activities, and traveling the world. They often have a high degree of control over their time, and may use this time to pursue their interests and passions, such as art, music, sports, or technology.

It is difficult to generalize the views of the 1%, as they are a diverse group with a range of perspectives and political affiliations. However, some members of the 1% may support capitalism as the best economic system, and may view wealth as a sign of success and merit. Others may be more critical of capitalism, and may support reforms to address its inequalities and failures. Some may be politically active and use their wealth and influence to support candidates and causes, while others may prefer to stay out of the political arena.

Overall, the 1% are a complex and diverse group, with a range of lifestyles, views, and values, and it is important to recognize and respect the differences within this group.

OBL: So you're saying there is a chance that a part of this 1% will support movements to replace capitalism with something else?

ChatGPT: Yes, it is possible that some members of the 1% may support movements to replace capitalism with a different economic system. While many members of the 1% may have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and may resist changes that threaten their wealth, power, or influence, others may recognize the flaws and failures of capitalism and may support reforms and alternatives.

For example, some members of the 1% may support reforms that address economic inequality, environmental degradation, or other pressing social and environmental challenges. They may view these reforms as necessary to maintain a stable and sustainable economic system, and may use their wealth, influence, and political power to support these changes.

It is also possible that some members of the 1% may support more radical reforms and may advocate for the replacement of capitalism with a more equitable and sustainable system. These individuals may see the current system as inherently flawed and unjust, and may believe that a transition to a new system is necessary to address the challenges facing society.

Overall, the views and actions of the 1% can vary widely, and it is important to engage with a diversity of perspectives and to work towards reforms that benefit everyone, not just a small elite.

OBL: What can individuals do to contribute

ChatGPT: Individuals can contribute to efforts to address the challenges posed by capitalism and to create a more equitable and sustainable economic system in several ways:

Educate themselves: Gaining a better understanding of capitalism and its impact on society, as well as the alternatives and reforms that have been proposed, is an important first step towards meaningful change.

Engage in activism: Individuals can join or support organizations and movements that are working to address economic inequality, environmental degradation, and other pressing social and environmental challenges. They can also participate in protests, marches, and other forms of public demonstration to raise awareness and push for change.

Vote: Engaging in the political process, including participating in elections and advocating for policies that promote economic justice and sustainability, is an important way for individuals to have a voice and make a difference.

Support ethical businesses and organizations: Individuals can support businesses and organizations that are committed to sustainable and equitable practices, and avoid those that engage in harmful or unethical practices.

Invest in sustainable and responsible ways: Individuals can consider investing their money in ways that align with their values and support sustainable and responsible businesses and organizations.

Advocate for systemic change: Individuals can advocate for systemic change by supporting and participating in political and social movements that are working to create a more equitable and sustainable economic system.

Remember, every action, no matter how small, can contribute to creating a better world. By taking action and working together, individuals can help to create a more equitable and sustainable economic system for future generations.

OBL: You mention voting within the political process. Didn't you earlier say that the 1% have a hold on our political system? How does working within the political system help then? Aren't you just legitimizing elite rule by doing that?

ChatGPT: Yes, it is true that the political and economic systems are often influenced by the wealthy and powerful, including the 1%. However, participating in the political process, including voting, can still be an important way for individuals to have a voice and make a difference, even within a system that is imperfect and influenced by powerful elites.

By participating in elections and advocating for policies that promote economic justice and sustainability, individuals can help to shape the policies and decisions that are made by those in power, and push for reforms that benefit everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that political and economic systems are complex and that simply participating in the political process is not enough to create lasting and meaningful change. A wide range of actions, including activism, education, and supporting responsible businesses and organizations, are also necessary to create a more equitable and sustainable economic system.

In conclusion, while it is important to be aware of the influence of the wealthy and powerful on the political and economic systems, it is also important to engage in the political process and work towards meaningful reforms that benefit everyone.

OBL: The same logic regarding investing. Isn't investing a 1% game

ChatGPT: Investing can be influenced by the actions of the wealthy and powerful, including the 1%. For example, large institutional investors and high net worth individuals often have a greater ability to invest in a wide range of assets, including stocks, bonds, real estate, and private equity. This can give them an advantage over smaller investors and contribute to wealth inequality.

However, this does not mean that individual investors cannot make a difference by investing in ways that align with their values. For example, socially responsible investing, where investors choose to invest in companies that adhere to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, can help to promote responsible and sustainable business practices. Additionally, investment in community development financial institutions (CDFIs), cooperatives, and other alternative forms of finance can help to build a more equitable and sustainable economic system.

In conclusion, while investing can be influenced by the actions of the wealthy and powerful, individual investors can still make a difference by investing in ways that align with their values and support sustainable and responsible businesses and organizations.

OBL: What will be your own strategy to replace capitalism with a better system

ChatGPT: As an AI language model created by OpenAI, I don't have personal opinions, beliefs, emotions, or strategies. My purpose is to provide neutral, accurate and concise information based on my training data, to help users make informed decisions.

However, it's important to recognize that the replacement of capitalism with a different economic system is a complex and challenging issue that requires the collective efforts of many individuals and organizations, including those in government, business, and civil society.

Some strategies that have been proposed to address the shortcomings of capitalism include:

Improving the distribution of wealth and income through progressive taxation and social safety net programs.

Promoting workers' rights and collective bargaining to increase workers' bargaining power and improve working conditions.

Encouraging sustainable and responsible business practices through regulation and incentives, and investing in clean energy and other environmentally friendly technologies.

Encouraging community-led economic development, such as co-operatives, local currencies, and other alternative forms of finance.

Advocating for reforms in the political and economic systems, including campaign finance reform, ending lobbying and the revolving door between government and industry, and increasing transparency and accountability.

These are just a few examples, and the specific strategies and actions required to replace capitalism with a better system will depend on the specific context and circumstances. However, it is clear that creating a more equitable and sustainable economic system will require the efforts of many individuals and organizations working together towards a common goal.

OBL: What about organizations like the Communist Party of the Philippines, are they important in these efforts?

ChatGPT: Organizations like the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) have played a role in advocating for change and promoting alternative political and economic systems, including communism. The CPP, along with other communist parties around the world, believe that communism provides a more equitable and just society, in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, rather than by a small group of individuals or corporations.

Whether or not organizations like the CPP are important in these efforts depends on one's political beliefs and values. Some people believe that communism is a viable alternative to capitalism and support the efforts of organizations like the CPP to promote it. Others believe that communism has proven to be an ineffective and harmful economic system and do not support such organizations.

In any case, it is important to remember that creating a more equitable and sustainable economic system will require the efforts of many individuals and organizations, and that the specific strategies and actions required will depend on the specific context and circumstances. Ultimately, the choice of the best path forward will depend on the collective will of the people and the political leaders they elect to represent them.

OBL: But the CPP has been tagged as a terrorist group

ChatGPT: Yes, some governments have designated the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) as a terrorist organization. Designations as a terrorist organization are often politically motivated and can be controversial.

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The CPP and its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA), have been accused of using violence and intimidation in pursuit of their political aims, including attacks on military, police, and civilian targets.

However, it is important to recognize that such designations are subjective and can be influenced by political and ideological considerations. Some groups and individuals may view the CPP and NPA as legitimate resistance movements fighting against an oppressive government, while others may see them as terrorist organizations engaged in illegal and violent activities.

Regardless of one's views on the CPP and NPA, it is clear that resolving conflicts and promoting peace and stability will require political will, dialogue, and a commitment to resolving differences through non-violent means.

OBL: But the CPP is not using non-violent means

ChatGPT: Yes, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA), have been accused of using violence and intimidation in pursuit of their political aims. The use of violence in political struggles is widely condemned and is seen as a major barrier to peace, stability, and the resolution of conflicts.

It is important to work towards resolving conflicts through peaceful means, such as negotiation, mediation, and dialogue. The use of violence and intimidation only leads to further violence and suffering and does not provide a lasting solution to political or economic problems.

In this regard, it is important for all sides to engage in constructive dialogue and seek to find peaceful, non-violent solutions to conflicts. This requires a commitment to peace, a willingness to compromise, and a recognition that violence is not the solution to political or economic problems.

OBL: Is the CPP's use of violence justified

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide you with some general information on this topic.

The use of violence in political struggles is widely condemned and is seen as a major barrier to peace, stability, and the resolution of conflicts. While some individuals and groups may justify the use of violence in pursuit of political aims, such actions are generally not seen as legitimate or acceptable in the international community.

The use of violence and intimidation only leads to further violence and suffering and does not provide a lasting solution to political or economic problems. It is important to work towards resolving conflicts through peaceful means, such as negotiation, mediation, and dialogue.

In this regard, it is important for all sides to engage in constructive dialogue and seek to find peaceful, non-violent solutions to conflicts. This requires a commitment to peace, a willingness to compromise, and a recognition that violence is not the solution to political or economic problems.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not the use of violence by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is justified is a matter of political opinion and personal belief. Different individuals and groups will have different views on this issue, and it is important for all sides to engage in respectful and open-minded dialogue to better understand one another's perspectives.

OBL: Can you site all the sources you cited throughout this conversation

ChatGPT: I apologize, but as an AI language model, I do not have the capability to cite specific sources for the information I have provided. The information I have shared throughout this conversation is based on a vast array of texts that I have been trained on, including websites, books, articles, and other forms of written material.

However, it is important to note that my training data has a knowledge cutoff of 2021, and some of the information may be outdated or subject to change. Additionally, the information I provide is intended to be a general overview and should not be considered comprehensive or authoritative. For more in-depth or accurate information, I recommend consulting reputable sources such as academic journals, government websites, and recognized experts in the relevant field.

OBL: Then cite what's usually regarded as the best books written on the topics we covered

ChatGPT: Sure! Here are some books that are widely regarded as important works on the topics we covered:

Capitalism:

"The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

"Das Kapital" by Karl Marx

"The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

"The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" by John Maynard Keynes

"The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking, and the Future of the Global Economy" by Mervyn King

The 1%:

"The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11" by Ron Suskind

"The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future" by Joseph E. Stiglitz

"Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson

"The Power of the Powerless: Citizens against the state in Central Eastern Europe" by Vaclav Havel

Replacing Capitalism:

"Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Friedrich Engels

"The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek

"Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" by Joseph A. Schumpeter

"The Real World of Democracy" by C.B. Macpherson

"An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.

These are just a few examples of some of the most important works on these topics. It is important to note that different books may offer different perspectives and opinions, and it is important to consider a range of sources in order to gain a well-rounded understanding of these complex issues.

OBL: Did you use content from those sources in your responses?

ChatGPT: As a language model, I have been trained on a diverse range of text sources, including websites, books, articles, and other forms of written material. This training data forms the basis for my responses and I use it to generate answers to the questions I am asked.

However, it is important to note that I do not have the ability to selectively use specific information from specific sources in my responses. Instead, my responses are generated based on patterns in the text I was trained on, and I do not have the ability to recall specific pieces of information from specific sources.

The information I provide is intended to be a general overview and should not be considered comprehensive or authoritative. For more in-depth or accurate information, I recommend consulting reputable sources such as academic journals, government websites, and recognized experts in the relevant field.

ChatGPT Jan 30 Version. Free Research Preview. Our goal is to make AI systems more natural and safe to interact with. Your feedback will help us improve.

Politics Discussion Requested

REPOST: ECOSOCIALISM: Hope of a dying world

Global warming, heat waves and stronger storms, these are just few examples of the devastating consequence of climate change. Just recently typhoon Karding has wreaked havoc in the Philippines, destroying people's livelihoods and taking 12 lives. Scientists have been talking about it and as the Carbon Emissions continue to rise up, they warn us about the irreversible effects in a form of worse catastrophes that we may face in the future. However, world leaders act on it with no sense of urgency, as if they don't know that we are in a climate emergency, as if it hasn't already taken many lives.

Their hands are still tied up on the "solutions" that still prioritizes the profit of the few, over the welfare of our planet and the lives of the people.

Partido Lakas ng Masa asserts that we need to act now and come up with a solution that protects both the people and our planet earth.

With this, PLM invite you to the launch of the Ecosocialism Movement. We offer you the need for a socialist alternative based on the preservation and renewal of the environment and the ecosystem which are central to the struggle against capitalism.

JOIN US! As we dare to hope, to save the dying world.

November 5, Saturday, 2 pm to 6 pm, University Hotel, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Facebook

REPOST: Sa Pagpanaw ng dating Pangulong Noynoy Aquino - Ka Leody de Guzman

Sharing this very well-written post from BMP chair Leody de Guzman, one of the best on P-Noy's recent passing. The original post is here. 

Hindi madaling magsulat ng "eulogy" sa mga kontrobersyal na personalidad sa kasaysayan, laluna sa lipunang may nagtutunggaling mga interes at mga uri.

Sa pagpanaw ng mga natatanging mga indibidwal mula sa kampo ng naghaharing uri o mga kilusang lumalaban sa kanilang paghahari, tiyak na anumang salita para sa yumao ay aani ng reaksyon (kundi man mariing pagtutol) sa anumang kampo.

Ganunpaman, kailangang sabihin ang dapat sabihin bilang tanda ng pagkilala (at respeto) sa isang kababayang nagmarka sa ating kasaysayan. Igawad ang rekognisyon sa ilang piling mga indibidwal na naregaluhan ng pambihirang mga istorikal na oportunidad na kanilang yinakap at sinunggaban.

Sa pamilya Aquino, ipinaabot ng Bukluran ang taos-pusong pakikiramay sa pagpanaw ng dating pangulong Noynoy. Anuman ang ating mga pinagdaanang mga hidwaan (at gaano man ito kalalim), hindi kami nakalilimot sa pinagdaanang sakripisyo ng inyong pamilya sa ilalim ng diktadurang Marcos.

Maging sa aking personal na karanasan, bilang bahagi ng henerasyon ng manggagawa na unang nagising sa mga politikal na katotohanan sa kasagsagan ng diktadurang Marcos, humanga ako sa katatagan ng inyong pamilya sa kabila ng inyong pinagdaanan sa mga kampon ng pasistang rehimen. Sariwa pa sa aking isipan ang unang protesta na aking nadaluhan - ang martsa mula Tarlac to Tarmac - bilang kondemnasyon sa asasinasyon ni Ninoy noong 1983.

Ngayon, kung inyo pong mamarapatin, hinihiling po naming maunawaan ninyo ang mga bumabatikos kay Noynoy (at marahil ay nauungkat pa ang mga isyu't usapin sa termino ng kanyang inang si Ginang Cory) sa panahong ito ng inyong pagluluksa at pagdadalamhati.

Hindi hinihingi ng ating mga kababayan na maging perpekto si Noynoy. Iyan po ay imposible. Lahat tayo ay may bahid, may kahinaan, may pagkukulang, may kamalian at may kasalanan.

Nagpapaalala lamang ang ating mga kababayan na huwag malilimutan ang mga kamalian. Hindi pa ni Noynoy bilang indibidwal kundi ng mga kontra-manggagawa't kontra-mamamayang interes at patakaran ng kanyang itinaguyod noong maluklok siya bilang pinakamakapangyarihang tao sa bansa.

Kung karakter at pagkatao, malayong-malayo si Noynoy sa ibang mga pangulo laluna kay Marcos at Duterte, mga personaheng sakim sa absolutong kapangyarihan. Subalit siya ay hindi naiiba sa lahat ng mga presidente ng bansa na ang kinikilingan ay ang interes ng mga kapitalista, asendero, bangkero, at negosyante kumpara sa manggagawa't maralita sa lungsod at kanayunan. Tulad ng iba, si Noynoy ay pabor din sa kontraktwalisasyon, liberalisasyon, deregulasyon, pribatisasyon, di-pagpapatupad sa repormang agraryo, regresibong pagbubuwis, atbp.

Ang malubhang mga epekto ng mga maling desisyong ito ang siyang ginatungan nila Duterte-Marcos-GMA, ang pinakareaksyonaryo at pinakaatrasadong seksyon ng naghaharing uri sa bansa, kaya nila naagaw ang estado power noong halalang 2016.

Huwag niyo sanang masamain ang pagpapahayag ng ating mga kababayan sa naturang mga kritisismo. Tulad lamang ito ng sinasabi natin noon sa mga Marcos, na kung obligahin man tayo ng ating mga paniniwala na magpatawad, hindi po ito nangangahulugang tayo ay makakalimot. Ito ang diwa ng panawagang sabay nating sinasagot sa pamilya ng yumaong diktador: "Never forget, never again".

Ang pagkilala sa kamalian at kahinaan ang unang hakbang ng pagwawasto't pagbabago; at aplikable ito kaninuman, hindi lamang sa pamilya Marcos at Aquino kundi maging sa mga rebolusyonaryong kilusan, para makintal ang mga aral sa kolektibong memorya ng buong mamamayang Pilipino.

At ngayong nahaharap ang ating bansa sa klase ng pamumuno na tila nanunumbalik (at sa ibang mga aspeto'y hindi lang bumabalik kundi sumasahol pa nga) ang otoritaryanismo at tahasang diktadura, makakaasa ang inyong pamilya, na kung sinuman sa inyo ang tatahak muli sa landas ng pagtatanggol sa ating mga demokratikong karapatan at kalayaang sibil, maluwag sa loob silang tatanggapin ng kilusang manggagawa at ng kilusang masa sa ilalim ng iisang bandera para sa demokrasya't kalayaan ng sambayanang Pilipino.

Hindi lamang sa nagkakaisang hanay laban sa bulok at palpak na rehimeng Duterte kundi sa pinakamalapad na alyansa (gaya ng orihinal na Lakas ng Bayan o LABAN) para sa ating pambansang kaligtasan mula sa krisis sa kalusugan at kabuhayan, mga suliraning sadyang mahirap na lutasin hangga't nakaluklok ang kasalukuyang inutil na administrasyon.

Sapagkat, sa huling pagsusuri, ang ating kaligtasan ay nasa lakas ng pagkakaisa't pakikibaka ng manggagawa't mamamayan. Wala sa mga pekeng tagapaligtas na tiyak na magsusulputan para sa darating na halalan. #

Ka Leody de Guzman

Tagapangulo, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP)

ika-25 ng Hunyo 2021

The risks of giving

Let's start off with a basic point: Community Pantries are obviously a good thing. No one has yet come up with a solid argument saying CPs should be stopped. Even the DILG has issued guidelines on how to properly conduct CPs, not to prohibit them, despite the efforts by some in the Left to organize CPs with a clear anti-Duterte message.

There are lingering doubts about just how long the phenomenon will last. Like how long will CPs be "sustainable." And yet even if it does fizzle out, even those small past moments when it concretely helped people, providing them food to eat, would have been worth it. 

One wonders though whether, through the opening provided by Community Pantries, there is now an opportunity to ask the more difficult questions in our societies: Why does poverty exist? What kind of society is this that we live in in the first place that allows large members of the community to experience hunger? What are the solutions to it? 

Why, really, did we have to come up with Community Pantries? 

It is important to ask these questions because sometimes, in the conduct of the Community Pantries themselves, certain features get highlighted over others that bear directly on how we would answer them. Chief of these is the idea of "human kindness." 

The kindness stories emphasize the ability of people in Community Pantries to be generous, to not think of oneself first. Indeed to make little sacrifices that benefit the community as a whole. 

We need a kinder society, there's no doubt about that. In fact maybe we can argue that precisely the vision of Socialism is based on the fundamental capacity of individuals to give primacy to the larger whole, so that everyone benefits from everyone else's actions and no one is left behind.  

The point though is that it is not necessarily the lack of kindness of our societies that make poverty thrive. It is not the lack of kindness that causes hunger. People are not hungry because society is unkind.

Let us consider now for a moment the societies we have built: It is, of course, this present society -- this highly unequal, inhumane contrivance of our times. A society where the vast numbers of people are in fact poor. A society with very little social safety nets. A society where personal advancement is directly correlated with how much wealth one owns to begin with. And a society, indeed, where all this is happening amid the immense, unreasonable wealth of a small privileged class. 

Poverty is a logical feature of Capitalist society, the dominant economic/social system of our world today. Capitalism is a system that emphasizes uncontrolled private ownership, even to the detriment of society as a whole. 

Poverty, then, is systemic. And no amount of kindness under the present economic system will be able to change this. 

So now there is a risk that the same 1% (and their 20% first cousins) who we can be sure were barely affected by this pandemic, can reposition themselves as benefactors of Community Pantries -- with little real effort on their part except their parting from their own surplus resources. (This I think is one of the reasons why the Community Pantry movement are right in ensuring that givers draw as little attention to themselves -- an advice that unfortunately is lost on some celebrities.) 

Because the richest members of Philippine society too can be kind -- without necessarily ceasing to be the richest, and losing their privileged positions. Note that all sorts of ugly elite moralizing and justification of the status quo can follow from this. An un-critiqued elite known for being kind can find their current positions justified – for as long as they can also engage in the act of giving. What will then prevent some of the supposed benevolent givers to say even just once: Maybe the problem with you people is that you don't work hard enough. Or pray hard enough. 

Another, word that some writers have associated with Community Pantries that also has something to say about how we might reeimagine our future societies is the word Socialism. 

The moment Ana Patricia Non's Maginhawa Community Pantry gained momentum, among the first ones who took to the idea were organized groups of the Left. It's really not hard to see why. 

First off, Non's effort aside, the basic idea of community sharing did not originate from Non, both in theory and practice. Other groups, notably from the Philippine's anarchist traditions, have done this before. The only difference is that they were not picked up by media when they did. 

So who else, apart from the Left, will appreciate a movement whose sole aim is to help the masses? The very the slogan, “Get what you need, give what you can” is a direct descendant of Socialist movements that existed even before Marx's Communist Manifesto. 

Hence the Community Pantry's Socialist connection. But left to its current form, there is actually little in Community Pantries that will help people appreciate Socialism more deeply. 

A while back, Socialism was defined as a social/economic system where society's wealth is commonly/publicly owned. It is a system where private property loses favor to public ownership. It is because of these characteristics that a Socialist society is able to take care of its members -- the basic productive forces that produce material goods are owned by all, so that everyone can commonly benefit from them. 

It shouldn't be controversial to say that Community Pantries do not feature these traits. There is no abolition of private property going on here. There are no calls for common ownership. There is no movement for a system-enshrined guarantee of material goods for everyone. 

In simple terms, Community Pantries can be seen as logistical systems of the reallocation of existing community surpluses. These surpluses, much like the base resource from which they came from, are/were privately owned, but their owners decided to share them with everyone else. To be sure, this is revolutionary in itself. But that's not exactly how Socialism operates. 

Community Pantry recipients are members of society who, one way or another, were unfortunate enough to have been excluded from the guarantee of the material provisioning they would otherwise be readily afforded, and entitled, to under a Socialist society. 

So perhaps it is important to be reminded of what any serious Socialist project would entail whenever we superimpose the image of Community Pantries alongside Socialism. The hope is that Community Pantries will allow us to reimagine the boundaries of what's possible in our societies. This goes way beyond the current ideas revolving around these efforts. 

I am not making the argument that Community Pantries, in their current form, indeed cannot somehow morph into larger movements that are more sustained and whose aspirations are more ambitious. Who really knows? Maybe CPs get sustained way post-pandemic. Maybe the CPs result in a widespread rethinking within our societies of our social classes' relationship to wealth and privilege. 

And again there is value in Community Pantries even just in their current form. CP organizers were clear from the start that they were not meant to solve poverty anyway, but rather to provide temporary relieve to those most in need. 

But we still have to be careful with the messaging. If its anti-poverty commitment is deep, Community Pantries should help raise awareness of the class divide, not hide this under favored narratives. CPs should come with the reminder that ultimately, what would end the cycle of despair in the vast majority of the peoples of the world who are poor is the common ownership of society's wealth, not just parts of that wealth. 

Community Pantries should serve as a reminder: people are going hungry because we live under a system steeped in poverty and inequality. The long lines in Community Pantries should serve as a reminder that this current system, not just the governments that protect it, have failed.

Workers' organizers at Cosmic Enterprises detained by police!

Organizers of workers' groups were detained by police today (February 5) in Caloocan. This seems brazen, and deserves careful study -- are we entering a new period of anti-worker repression?

Some of the organizers are young, one of them a graduate student of the Ateneo. Based on the groups' statements, it appears that the PNP has no legal basis to arrest the organizers along with workers who have been on strike for a month over reported long-standing unfair labor practices at Cosmic Enterprises, a little-known paper company.

If left unchallenged, this act will embolden authorities to further intensify repression against workers and their support groups.





A brief background of the Cosmic strike is here

STAND WITH ROJAVA! OPPOSE TURKEY'S AGGRESSION IN NORTHERN SYRIA!

This article provides context for understanding Turkey's assault in northern Syria. As is well known, Rojava in Syria has been trying to build a better kind of society following its defeat of ISIS in the region. All of that is at risk due to Turkey's war.

 

See also:

 

Rojava conflict (from Wikipedia)