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

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.

A look at our retail sector: Socialize the malls!

An article from Nextshark reveals the condition of workers at The Landmark, as narrated by an applicant on Facebook. Original article here. The applicant has since made some of her personal posts private, apparently due to intimidation from some.

Landmark is quite a sneaky entity. It functions as the department store section of other malls like Ayala, which only has "boutique" sections. It is far from "high end" as the article suggests, but it sits just close to places like Greenbelt. For Ayala malls, it also functions as the "food court" section.

Ayala apparently "outsources" all the dirty work to a provider like Landmark, to cut costs and pass on operational risks. It's no wonder their employees are neglected -- it appears to be their owners' exact business model. But Landmark is not the only culprit here.

Retail trade accounts for around P2 trillion in value in the Philippine economy, or some 13% of the GDP, but their workers get low pay. "Contractualization" is probably still rampant. And as seen here, they also get very bad treatment.

All of this is just a reflection of the trajectory that was designed by our economic managers who bought into the "globalization" hype -- neglect your own agriculture and manufacturing/industrial sector, turn your vast lands into malls, force the displaced farmers and industrial workers to become sales personnel, import the food and goods you no longer make at home, and sell them in the malls you built. If you really want out, you can leave your family and become an OFW, and your government will only be too happy to export you instead in return for the dollars. Note that this is the exact same policy that Rodrigo Duterte continues to uphold.

Meanwhile, the mall owners -- the Ayalas, Sys and Gokongweis -- are cream of the crop of the Philippine upper class elites. It is wealth that is founded on their own country's lack of an independent economic policy, deceit and workers' despair.

There may be several ways to address this whole problem. (The only real solution, really, is to rethink humanity's love affair with Capitalism, but since that probably won't happen anytime soon, let's look at more immediate options.)

In the very near term, if the retail elites think that the trajectory of global economy is now irreversible, they should at least make an effort to treat their workers decently as human beings. But if they won't do that, it's time we socialized the malls. The workers -- salesladies, food crew, haulers, etc. -- work their assess off for them. Why shouldn't they get a fair share based on what they contribute?

 

 

Socialist Circle announces Marx Festival 2018

Notes on a New Philippine Left

It looks like I will be posting even less material on this blog because of a not-so-unexpected development in my “other” life. But before I sink back into oblivion for a while (not that I have actual readers, and thanks if you happen to be one. Cheers.), I thought of posting my general notes on the Philippine Left.

Two questions: Why do I think anyone cares? And who the hell am I in the first place?

On the first question, which is partly rhetorical, my answer is, I don't. But this blog is of course written for those who do care. Political commentaries are not for everyone (people have different interests), Left-leaning ones even more so. On the second question, I have to admit that I am a nobody. As I said in my charming About page, I am a mere office guy. My immediate reason for keeping this blog is that I was once a student activist. I was drawn to Left politics in college. Like many that came from a struggling lower middle class family, the Left's language articulated the world to me – the poverty and its twin, social inequality; the ruling class and the power they hold over everyone; the what we often called “bankruptcy” of “bourgeois” culture; and the hope that all of it could be ended.

The other reason is that, for those who actually get absorbed by studies on society when they stare at it in all its frustrating existence, Leftist politics in its broadest sense remains the best hope humanity has for making things better. For two hundred years, it is the Left that has grappled with questions such as, “How does society really work” and “What can we do to change it?”

I would also like to think that my lack of a “Who's Who”-fitting identity supports one of the points I'm trying to make. One of the hopes of a new Left is that anyone can have a say in politics. As someone once said, politics is too important to be left to politicians, or in the case of the Left to academics and full-time activists, no matter how brilliant their insights. It is among my hopes that more and more people say out loud what they feel about issues such as social inequality and what they think should be done against it. Or, if they were self-proclaimed Leftists as I am, to speak out their own opinions on issues close to the Left – such as issues of strategy and organization.

The following points make up my account of things on precisely these issues.


1. The Philippines needs a new form because the Old Left no longer works.

What is the current status of the Philippine Left? Today it is dominated of course by the Communist Party and the organizations that, let's say, draw inspiration from it. Then there is the “broad Left” made up of all the other Leftist formations that split from the Party in 1992 in a debate over strategy. One thing they all have in common is their desire to be able to take over the state at some point, in a violent overthrow – a “revolution,” in keeping with the ideas of Karl Marx. I call them the Old Left (for purposes of simplification, I am obviously leaving out here the group Akbayan which supported the economically conservative Aquino administration in its entire duration. Akbayan was also formed after the 1992-1993 CPP split, but over the years it has become less and less critical of Capitalism, and more and more supportive of traditional politicians). 

Did the Old Left work? Is it working now? In a way, the CPP, or the “NDs” as they are also called (for “National Democracy,” a programmatic term which is essentially their alternative to Socialism, a period of “socialist construction”), did get a taste of state power even if they didn't manage to capture the state (and perhaps thankfully so) in the manner they prefer, which is by building farmer armies in the countryside through a “protracted” guerilla war. They did it by being an ally of Rodrigo Duterte, another economically conservative politician and a mass murderer by command. Meanwhile, the other groups continue to exist as a marginal force in Philippine politics. How they intend to win – and what their criteria for winning are – are anybody's guess. But, again in keeping with Marxism, Leftist parties start with ideas around arousing and organizing if not the "peasants" then in particular the workers for the upcoming momentous war with the establishment.

The result? Fifty years since the CPP's founding, and 25 years after the split, there exists no genuine debate at all about anti-capitalism nor socialism in the Philippine political mainstream – in the minds of even the most educated ordinary Filipinos (groups like the Socialist Circle are very new entrants, and still have little activity). People associate the word “Left” with “ism” slogans and rallies in the streets that for them cause nothing more than traffic. The Left thus exists in the popular mind more as a method of protest, not an intelligent and necessary critique of capitalism and of the collective process of imagining alternatives to it.

I personally don't blame them. Perhaps during the 60s down to the 70s, the prospect of succeeding in a violent revolution was very real, and so all political strategies were tailored toward that end. This was after all a period of student revolt and the hippie culture. People, especially the youth, were asking questions and for many of them the ideas of the Left offered answers. So what they did was come up with a political strategy that seemed reasonable at the time. They had a different set of objectives, but those objectives continue to be their objectives now. And so their strategy based on that have not changed. Except that now, after half a century of sticking to the original plan, the unexpected happened – they managed to build well-established organizations whose survival in and of itself has become another main priority, and which committed them further to their original modes of operation.

Fast forward to 2018. Only more than year a ago, Filipinos elected a confessed murderer and rapist-wannabe. After more than 10,000 Filipinos died in the drug war – that mostly eliminated the poor – they kept silent. Support for Duterte is rising among the middle class. Meanwhile, membership in unions have declined over the years since the early 1990s. More and more Filipinos, a lot of them the so-called millennials, are getting suckered into investing in the stock market, perhaps not too oblivious to the notion that it is exactly a tool for wealth concentration into the upper and upper middle class more than anything else. Self-reported poverty is still hovering within the 40-50% level (i.e. half of the population identifying as poor). Yet in global surveys, Filipinos are found to be among the most “happy.”

Is this really a good time to think about building an army and taking over the state? Has not the period for this kind of strategy ended when the communists missed the chance to take over government during the political vacuum of the post-Snap Election Marcos years?

In our current state, it is becoming more and more obvious that the Left will never be able to overthrow government in a violent revolution. And even if they could, such a revolution will only end up being violent toward the people because a great part of them will be against it, for whatever reason. This is not mentioning the tragedy of the countless deaths of our best and brightest who devote their lives to their organizations' cause along the way. The strategy of a long-term force build-up in anticipation of a great rupture against the state, led by a group of ideologically correct super-activists believing in a singular ideology just no longer seems to work.


2. The task of the new Left is to disseminate and propagate the anti-Capitalist critique and the alternatives to it.

Capitalism is an economic and social system based on the private ownership of society's productive assets. Its end result has become, on the one hand, the concentration of wealth in the top section of society, and on the other the massive poverty of the masses of people below. Marx observed that value is really something that only the workers can generate through their labor, and it is this value from worker labor that the entire “ruling class” expropriates in the form, ultimately, of money. The overall end result is massive social inequality – the very few live very well, while the greatest majority suffer in unspeakable conditions.

Its ideological defense is safely enshrined in society's legal “superstructure” (i.e. private property) but also finds expression in all other human cultural activities (especially religion and formal education). A deeply unsustainable system, it was supposed to already have disintegrated. However, human technological achievements, in my opinion, just keeps delaying its demise. As technology advances, humans find more and more ways to produce goods cheaply, resulting in a situation where even ordinary workers can afford smart phones and feel somehow part of the community and its material and  cultural “progress.” Of course, that stability is guaranteed by the people's default, pro-capitalist mentality.

Or at least, all of the above is just one version of it. There should be many more, and if there are it should be upon all members of society to talk about it and eventually do something about what they've agreed upon.

The problem here is that “What do Filipinos think about these concepts,” is not the next question. The next question really is, how come there exists practically no discussion of these issues in our daily lives? And given this, how can Philippine society suddenly become socialist-oriented when we don't even have open socialists in mainstream politics (don't count Risa, she has barely criticized Capitalism in the Senate, which is understandable) or, and more telling of our situation, even just in social media that will articulate the anti-capitalist critique and the alternatives to it? Surely, a society that has boasted one of the longest running Leftist revolutionary movements in Asia should by now have had the most conscious people when it comes to socialism and anti-capitalism? Surely in places like Facebook we would even now be having many groups whose sole discussion point is capitalism vs. socialism, say? Surely we would even now have a single NGO, out of the hundreds of NGO's out there, called the Center for Alternative Economies, generously funded by open-minded donors, with scholars devoted to the study of our non-capitalist future? Or surely even just one decent, well-cited and loved Socialist newspaper/website that's not tied to the NDs?

Alas, nada. It is because this part was specifically left out. One of the consequences of an Old Left being obsessed with the violent state overthrow is the treatment of discussions around our problems as  secondary to taking over the state. It's as if the Left never cared about the long term. All it wanted was Power. To handle the levers of government. And they will go as far as being allies with a potential dictator just to be able to taste some of it. But over the decades, I think we have learned that more important than the anticipation of the imagined final rupture with the state is the even more important question of what to do in the here and now.

So where I sit, the task is really to disseminate and struggle to popularize ideas that are critical of capitalism, exposing it in new, creative ways as a system that has brought so much misery to most of the people in our country, and that makes us all live collectively more depressing lives. For now I won't even go rah-rah for the S word – there will be a separate time for that. Right now, what we can do is attract politically interested individuals to this simple cause. We need something in the Philippines that will keep the discourse on anti-Capitalism and the alternatives to it alive and burning. Whether we succeed in forming a new organization or not, this should at least be our minimum aim before all really becomes lost.


3. The new Left has to try to do things differently this time. 

Just by observing the Old Left, we can know instinctively the things we ought not to repeat if we are to form a new one. First of all, the commitment to a single ideology seems passe. History is a witness to the mistakes and heartbreaking waste that have resulted from the fanatical commitment to a specific set of beliefs – beliefs that are interpreted faultlessly by a supposedly enlighted few. “Question everything,” is a dictum that's sometimes mentioned by the Old Left's youth groups. Everything – except the ideology of your own organization, and the methods it employs.

When it comes to politics and social life, none of us really are experts. All we can ever do is hope that somehow we agree to certain values such as social justice, and proceed from there. And this is because no amount of theorizing can really accommodate a world that is fundamentally mysterious and many times unrecognizable. Randy David, in a recent piece, is said to have mentioned that the best minds of his generation were so busy with structural debates in the 70's to the 80's. As a result, the single phenomenon that would define Philippine society over the next decades – Overseas Filipino Workers – was largely left unstudied, its full impacts not appreciated until it was a bit too late.

I think the single reason many Leftist parties the world over insist on a violent revolution is simply this – because 170 years ago, Marx said it. It was really his word, above all else. All the things they ever did were in strict observance with canonical Marxism. They treated Marxism as religion, only they shrouded it in scientific rigor. They are never wrong, and all those who oppose them deserve to be ridiculed and more, being the non-believers that they are. And incidentally this is also the reason for the triteness of the language that much of the Philippine Left still uses – calls and ways of saying them that make the only occasionally political cringe. “Ibagsak ang Imperyalismo! Labanan ang pasismo ng Estado!” These are great ideas, but they somehow feel so boring, so suffocating in the hands of the Old Left.

The anti-Capitalist position is not an ideological position. It is a position of common sense. Or, where is the sense in privatizing basic social services? Or in protecting absolute inheritance rights? Where is the sense in depressing wages in a calculated way just so the owning class retains profits? Where is the sense in dismantling all our local industries to take on the role of manual labor suppliers all over the world? And where is the sense in crafting a tax law that limits taxes from the rich while imposing a consumption tax on the millions of families that live hand-to-mouth? (Don't believe the bourgeois economist bigotry that states that the rich “reinvest” their profits and thus make jobs. Sure, they reinvest some of it, but they keep a disproportionate amount for themselves.) All of these questions require a reasonably non-capitalist solution – solutions not even whose shadows hover in mainstream political discourse. Yet we commit to these positions because they are simply reasonable, especially after decades and decades of capitalist failure.

Would it be too much to ask for new Left movements that they be ideologically open? That they make their positions based on nothing more than a reasoned argument?


Also based on what we've seen with the Old Left, it appears that the era of being a full-time cadre in a self-sustaining ideological party is past. Of course we want to be self-sustaining. We want our organization to have its own finances. But there will be many pitfalls here. The moment we become a self-sustaining organization, automatically issues of bureaucratization will arise.

I personally think that an activist's source of income must not be completely tied to her politics. That way, if you find out the politics was wrong all along, you'll still have the courage step out of it and not cower in fear at the prospect of losing what by then would have practically become your livelihood, your financial source for feeding you and your family. (This is not to mention the perks – and they are many – of working in an organization that's often a recipient of funding from international donors.)

In a sense, this is what some NGO's are. The Philippine NGO scene is one other distant cousin of the broad Left following the CPP split. As the “rejectionist” faction crumbled over their inability to match the rigor of ND ideology (Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought), many of their old cadres, still infused with social values, turned to the NGO institutions. NGOs became a good way to engage the ruling class, while at the same time maintaining a job for people who did not want to be a sell-out to the corporate world.

NGO's are nice. However, without a radical infusion (read: one that states that Capitalism in the final analysis will be a dead end for humanity), all they ever will become is at best a proposer of palliative measures. At worst, they will become handmaidens of the ruling class – helping delay the inevitable destruction of humanity, but not attempting to stop it in any way.


4. Direct participation in mainstream politics will be necessary at some point and when we already have the strength to do it.

Finally, another way we can do things differently in the future is by once and for all tackling intently the question that has stared us in the face for the longest time – do we, as Socialists, actively participate in mainstream political processes?

This is the part I am most unsure of. It is standard knowledge in the Left that we just cannot fight the ruling class on their own turf. You fight them there, you lose. You won't be able to match their resources. But more than that, the game operates by their rules, and it can always be rigged for their sake if they want to.

And yet it seems very obvious that participation in the political process is a must. Leftists who miss out on electoral participation forego a great opportunity – if not the only one – to appeal to ears willing to listen. And whether we like it or not, the Philippine political mainstream has come to be accepted as a legitimate institution and a legitimate source of political power. The best time to be political is during the electoral season.

By “participation as Socialists,” I mean running in elective posts (at the most) with a clearly, openly, matter-of-factly Socialist platform. Active and serious participation in the electoral process, of course, has huge implications, one of which is central to the debate in the entire Left – it implies that we believe that society progresses and reaches more humane aims, if not socialism itself, via elections. Or put bluntly, that the state can be “reformed.” And so, “Reformists!,” will cry the extreme Leftists. Luckily, we now have an answer to the latter. I would borrow Bhaskar Sunkara's reference to “non-reformist reforms” for the content that a Socialist platform may include. You may read about it here.

But again, I do not know. What do I know is what I feel. And what I feel is that the more we do not come in there openly, with new ideas as Socialists, the more we get literally “Left” out.

Of course we won't do it tomorrow. Or next year. Or maybe we can do it small by small, although not necessarily at the barangay level. These are questions that all of us can settle once we have already have the organization that is even willing to entertain the idea. And perhaps substantial participation in the political/electoral process is not limited to actually running for certain seats. What is clear is that we will not do it unthinkingly, and we will do it together.

Even the question of how the political Leftist party will be funded is a question for the organization. As individuals, we can do little. But as a single unit acting as one, maybe some things can be achieved. We may not be able to put out a 30-second spot in the major TV channels, but during the last elections, even the party-less Walden Bello was able to push some of it.

And in the end maybe this is where our faith in the people comes in. Maybe if there were masses of people with an anti-Capitalist politics, even the ruling class will have to concede things every now and then. Incidentally it is this same mass of people – all of us – that will be decisive in winning the "final rupture" if ever that scenario appears on the horizon.

And what a horizon we face. As I finish this, Rodrigo Duterte has just managed to revoke the legal right to exist of the online news website Rappler which has been critical of its regime. That is scary by itself. But if we'll look around, pretty much the same thing is happening everywhere. Duterte and his syndicate have launched a full-scale attack on every single official that has stood her (an apt pronoun as many of them are women) ground against the excesses of the regime. It started with Leila de Lima in the Senate. Then it was Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales -- a woman whose feet Duterte is not fit to kiss. Then Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in Congress Duterte's allies are concocting all sorts of schemes either to extend his power some more, if not make him ruler for life.

Why is he doing this? Because as sure as the sun rises each day, eventually the massive social problems that Filipinos suffer from day by day will come crashing down on even the most euphoric of his supporters. Let us make one thing very clear here: Duterte will not be able to halt poverty, and he knows it. His economic policies are no different from that of all past administrations that the people have come to hate. There is nothing fundamentally different in his approach. And if the Left is to be believed, the recent tax intervention will do more harm for the common people than good. At the end of the day, it is the empty stomachs of those living in poverty that will disabuse people from the belief that change will finally come. It looks like Duterte is already trying to anticipate where this is all headed.

And yet, for the Old Left, before it even thinks of painting the streets red again in protest, it would do well to remember -- the Duterte Phenomenon is also partly a result of the Left's failures over the last half century of our nation's political life. When you show the public that protests are actually just a pretext for toppling regimes, which changes the faces in government but does not change its underlying terms, you teach them not to trust you in the future. The Left exists in the popular mind as a method of protest, true. But these are protests that have only led, for them, in failure.

The Philippine Left has always been a beacon of the Left in Asia. Perhaps it is time for us to return to form.


Makati, January 2018

xxx

BAKIT KAILANGAN NG BAYAN ANG LABAN NG MASA: Speech at the First General Assembly (Bello)

Mga kasama, invited guests, dear friends:

When I invited a Dean at a prominent university to this assembly he said that he remembered the first Laban ng Masa as the biggest alliance of progressive forces that had come together since the 1986 People Power Revolution. Many of you here today were part of that first Laban ng Masa. [The Chairman of that First Laban ng Masa is here today, Ka Dodong Nemenzo, the person who is most associated with the socialist tradition in our country. Let us give Ka Dodong a big hand. He will be giving us a message later this morning.]

 

Naririto ngayong ang Pangulo ng unang Laban ng Masa, si Ka Dodong Nemenzo, isang taong kilala ng lahat bilang primerong tagataguyod ng tradisyon sosyalista sa ating bansa. Bigyan natin si Ka Dodong ng isang masigabong pagbabati. Magbibigay siya ng isang mensahe sa atin mamaya ng kaunti.

 

[In our decision to found the second Laban ng Masa, we confront conditions that may be different from the circumstances of 2005 and 2006, but we face them in the same way, as progressives who seek to change the social structure that condemns millions of our compatriots to poverty, inequality, and powerlessness.]

 

Noong nagdesisyon tayo na itayo ulit ang Laban ng Masa, alam natin na iba ang mga kondisyon na hinaharap ng bansa ngayon sa mga kondisyon na umiiral noong 2005 at 2006. Ngunit hinaharap natin ang mga bagong kondisyon na hawak ang parehong pananaw--ibig sabihin, bilang mga progesibong nagtatankang palitan ang isang rehimeng sosyal na nagkokondena ng milyung-milyun ng ating mga kapwa Pilipino sa kahirapan, sa di-pagkapantaypantay, at sa kawalan ng kapangyarihan.

 

Today, our country is ruled by a man whose brainchild, the so-called War of Drugs, has taken over 13,000 lives in less than a year and a half. Placed in a Southeast Asian context, the number of those killed makes the Duterte’s war against the poor the third most deadly in the region’s recent history, after the Khmer Rouge genocide of 1975-78,, which took some 3-4 million lives, and the massacre of Communists and Communist sympathizers in Indonesia in 1965, whose victims ranged from 500,000 to 2 million.

 

[If you remember, Duterte said in October of 2016, when the number of those slain was “just” around 3000, that 20,000 to 30,000 more Filipinos might need to be murdered for his campaign to meet its objectives. Many people then said he was joking or he was engaging in hyperbole. A year later, no one is laughing any more.]

 

Naala siguro niyo, sinabi ni Duterte noong Oktubre nang 2016, noong mga tres mil pa lang ang napaslang niya, na baka kailangan pa raw mamatay ang 20 hanggang 30 mil na Pilipino bago makamit ng War on Drugs ang layunin niya. Maraming nagsabi noon na nagbibiro lang siya or gumagawa raw siya ng hyperbole. Matapos ang isang taon, wala nang tumatawa.

 

President Duterte is what I call a fascist. But he is a fascist original. The usual textbook model of how fascism comes about is that of “creeping fascism,” like that of Marcos, where the first phase is marked by violations of political and civil rights, followed by the grab for absolute power, then by massive, indiscriminate repression. Duterte’s brand of fascism is what we might call “blitzkrieg fascism,” wherein the order is reversed: first indiscriminate murder in the form of thousands of extra-judicial executions of poor people, then with all sectors thoroughly intimidated, followed by the grab for absolute power and the abolition of democratic institution and political and civil rights.

 

There may be differences among us as to whether we should call the current regime fascist, authoritarian, or de facto dictatorial rule, but there can be no doubt that the direction is towards the consolidation of absolute power, whether this comes in the form of martial law, the de facto subjugation of all the other branches of government to the president, a so-called revolutionary government, or charter change along the lines of “federalism.”

 

Siguro may mga pagkakaiba ng opinyon ang ilan sa atin tungkol as katangian ng rehimeng Duterte—pasista ba ito, o awtoryanismo, o isang de paktong diktadura? Pero walang duda na ang takbo ng pamahalaan ay patungong konsolidasyon ng kapangyarihang total sa pamamagita ng iba-ibang anyo, sa porma man ng martial law o sa de paktong pagsisira ng mga ibang sangay ng gobyerno o sa porma ng tintatawag na rebolusyonaryong gobyerno o sa pagpapalit ng saligang batas sa sistemang pederalista daw.

 

The only response that we can make to this swift movement towards absolute rule is resistance. However, it cannot be resistance in the name of restoring what I have called the EDSA system of elite democracy, for one of the chief reasons why Duterte is in power is because of the failure of that 30-year-old system to deliver on its promise of bringing about genuine democracy and the redistribution of wealth. Instead, what it gave us was a system dominated by traditional political elites, the continuing concentration of economic power in an oligarchy, and neoliberal economic policies that have resulted in some 25 per cent of our population living in poverty and in a gini coefficient of 50, which represents the worst inequality ever in the distribution of wealth and income in our history.

 

[We cannot go back to the past.]

 

Hindi tayong maaring bumalik sa nakaraan.

 

Despite his populist rhetoric, Dutere has, in fact, shown that he belongs to the past. He has shown his true colors when it comes to economic reform. Instead of outlawing contractualization, he has made it legal. He has made no effort to promote agrarian reform. He has not given coconut farmers the coco levy funds, as he promised during the campaign. He allowed the big mining lobby to oust Gina Lopez when a phone call to his allies in the Commission on Appointments could have save her. He has become the BFF of big capitalists like Ramon Ang and Manny Pangilinan. Nearly a year after he assumed office, nearly all fractions of the ruling class stand solidly behind him, and he stands solidly behind them. The only difference of substance from past regimes is that his main base within the elite are the warlords and clans that control local politics throughout the country.

 

[We are at the moment at a dangerous juncture. ]

 

Ang bayan ngayon ay nasa isang puntong mapanganib.

 

The popularity and credibility of the administration have declined. The vast majority of the people do not believe the police’s explanation that most of those killed in the anti-drug war resisted arrest. The killing of teenagers Kian de los Santos, Reynado de Guzman, and Carl Angelo Arnaiz brought many people to their senses. Trust in the police, the main agency of the war on drugs, is lower than its already low level before Duterte. It is surely a sign of changing times when Duterte’s allies in the Senate are angry that they were not signatories of a resolution condemning the killing of young people by the police, undoubtedly because these opportunists feel the wind is shifting.

 

[With distrust and disappointment building, Duterte has seen a drop of 18 percentage points in his net satisfaction rating. The public mood is changing. Fearful of losing his momentum, Duterte may panic and move forward quickly to dictatorial rule.]

 

Pataas ang bilang ng mga walang tiwala kay Duterte o mga nabigo yung mga pagasa nila sa kanya. Napapakita ito sa pagbagsak na labing walong porsyento sa tinatawag na net satisfaction rating niya. Nagpapalit ang ihip ng hangin. Nababagabag sa pagkawala ng momentum, baka masindak si Duterte at sumulong na mabilis upang magtayo ng diktadura.

 

The country today is looking for a force that will rescue it from the mess it is in. People will not, however, trust those who say they are against dictatorship but have until very recently been part of the regime they are now denouncing. It is certainly positive that these forces have ceased being part of a bloody regime, but for them to claim leadership of the resistance is not something the people will buy. You cannot fool the people.

 

Neither will our people at this point accept an alternative that looks back to the past, to forces associated with the elite democracy and neoliberal politics that destroyed the promise of the EDSA People Power Revolution. Yellow has become a term of contempt among our people, because it has come to represent a system that is democratic in rhetoric but oligarchic in substance.

 

The people will only trust those forces who are neither compromised with the present nor the past. The people will only trust those who have condemned the anti-people policies of this administration from the very beginning and have been consistent in their opposition. The people will only trust people like you who are assembled here today--people untainted by opportunism or association with a discredited past and a menacing present.

 

Ang mamamayan ay magtitiwala lang sa mga puwersang hindi nasangkot sa kasalukuyang or nakaraang rehimen. And bayan ay magtitiwala lang sa mga puwersang nagkondena na sa mga laban sa bayan na mga polisiya ng administrasyon noong pasimula pa lang niya at pirme sa kanilang oposisyon. Ang bayan ay magtitiwala lang sa mga taong kagaya niyo na nagpupulong ngayon ditto, mga taong di markado ng oportunismo o ng pagkakasangkot sa nakaraang bulok at sa kasalukuyang mapanganib.

 

The need for a genuine and credible opposition to authoritarian rule is one reason we have come together in Laban ng Masa. But there is another reason. That other reason is that we offer the only alternative that our people can take to break from the repression, poverty, and inequality that engulf them. That alternative is system change. This is change oriented in a socialist direction.

 

When we say we are socialist, we do not mean we champion the centralized bureaucratic systems that collapsed in Russia and Eastern Europe in 1989. Those regimes that disfigured the vision of socialism deserved to be banished to the dust bin of history, and the authoritarian left movements that continue to adhere to their failed ideology are doomed to permanent marginalization.

 

Socialism for us means a system of genuine, participatory democracy dedicated to transforming the economic order in order to eliminate inequality among social groups.

 

Para sa atin, ang ibig sabihin ng sosyalismo ay isan tunay na demokrasya kung saan nakikilahok ang lahat sa pagdedesisyon, isang system na magwawakas as kasulukuyang rehimeng na nakabase sa di-pagkapantaypantay ng mga mamamayan.

 

When we say socialism, we mean a post-capitalist system where the means of production are owned and controlled by the majority for the welfare and interests of the majority.

 

We mean a system that recognizes that it is labor that creates wealth and promotes the self-organization of workers to determine the ways in which the wealth they create is used, whether for consumption, investment, or enabling democratic government.

 

We mean a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, with the emphasis on by the people, that is, direct, participatory democracy.

 

Ang ibig natin sabihin ay isang gobyerno ng bayan, para sa bayan, at sa pamamagita ng bayan, na ang diin as nasa pamamagita na bayan—ibig sabihin, sa pamamagita ng isang demokrasya kung saan lumalahok ang lahat sa paggagawa ng mga desisyon, hindi yung nagpapanggap na kintawan nila ngunit sa katotohanan ay naghahari sa kanila.

We mean a system of governance that will abolish inequalities based on class, race, ethnicity, and gender--one that will bring about real, substantive equality, not just formal equality before the law.

 

We mean a state that will safeguard our national sovereignty and fight imperialism in whatever shape it takes, whether this be US militarism or Chinese hegemony.

 

We mean a government that will provide the full range of social services for its citizens, from a guaranteed basic income to job security to all forms of social security.

 

Ang ibig natin sabihin ay isang gobyerno na magbibigay ng lahat ng serbisyo sosyal sa mga mamamayan, mula sa garantisadong sahod na basiko para sa lahat hanggang seguridad ng trabaho at lahat na klase na seguridad sosyal.

 

We mean a system of governance that will safeguard the environment and work with other governments to protect the planet and the country from global climate change.

 

We mean a state that recognizes the right of self-determination for all oppressed minority peoples.

We mean an economic and social system that will give ownership and control of the land to the people and communities that till the soil through thorough and comprehensive agrarian reform.

 

Ang ibig natin sabihin ay isang sistemang ekonomiko at sosyal na magbibigay ng karapatan at kontrol sa lupa sa mga tao at komunidad na nagtratrabaho sa lupa sa pamamagita ng isang ganap at komprehensibong reporma sa lupa.

 

These are our demands. These are the Filipino people’s demands. These are the demands of 99 per cent of people throughout the globe.

 

Ito ang mga ating pinaglalaban. Ito ang mga pangangailangan ng Bayan Pilpino. Ito ang mga pangangailangan na ipinaglalaban ng siyamnaput siyam na porsyento ng buong mundo.

 

Let me end by saying that we as a nation are at a crossroads. There are essentially three paths before us.

 

The Duterte regime and its fanatic supporters are herding us towards the dark destination of open dictatorship and fascist rule, to a frightening repeat of Marcos’ “New Society.”

 

Then there are those who speak the language of democracy but look back with nostalgia to the system of oligarchic rule masked by formal democracy that reigned for 30 miserable years.

 

Then there is us, ordinary citizens who look toward and are fighting for a future of participatory democracy and economic and social equality. It is such a vision that Proverbs 29:18 meant when it said, ““Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

 

Laban ng Masa affirms that a future of democratic equality that goes beyond capitalism is possible and worth fighting for.

 

There is no guarantee that our vision will win, but we cannot win without putting all our sweat and, need be, our blood into making this future that we desire a reality.

 

Idinidiin natin sa Laban ng Masa na isang sistema na demokratikong pagkapantaypantay na lalagpas at papalit sa kapitalismo ay maaaring malikha ng kolektibong trabaho natin. Walang garantiya na magtatagumpay tayo. Ngunit hindi tayo magtatagumpay kung hindi tayo magbubuhos nang todo todo ng atin pawis a, kung kailangan, ating dugo upang maging tunay ang ating mga pangarap.

 

Mabuhay ang Laban ng Masa! Mabuhay ang sosyalismo!

 

The original post is here https://web.facebook.com/notes/laban-ng-masa/bakit-kailangan-ng-bayan-ang-laban-ng-masa-speech-at-the-first-general-assembly-/520941431600336/