What Should Socialists Do?

[This is a repost from Jacobin. The original article is here https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/socialist-left-democratic-socialists-america-dsa. I am aware, fortunately, that Philippine Leftists can't just "copy" movements from a completely different social context, or "mode of production" if you wish. But that kind of suffocating thinking is what has left the Philippine Left what it is now today -- a bunch of small Leninist parties that still use off-putting Marxist terms and world view, and a big party some of whose stalwarts are now collaborators of a murderous regime. Is it 13,000 dead? I've lost count.]

What Should Socialists Do?
Joseph M. Schwartz  /
Bhaskar Sunkara

Democratic socialism needs to become a mass presence in US society.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has 25,000 members. Its growth over the past year has been massive — tripling in size — and no doubt a product of the increasing rejection of a bipartisan neoliberal consensus that has visited severe economic insecurity on the vast majority, particularly among young workers.

No socialist organization has been this large in decades. The possibilities for transforming American politics are exhilarating.

In considering how to make such a transformation happen, we might be tempted to usher those ranks of new socialists into existing vehicles for social change: community organizations, trade unions, or electoral campaigns — organizations more likely to win immediate victories for the workers that are at the center of our vision. Why not put our energy and hone our skills where they seem to be needed the most? Workers’ needs are incredibly urgent; shouldn’t we drop everything and join in these existing struggles right now?

While it’s crucial to be deeply involved in such struggles as socialists, we also have something unique to offer the working class, harnessing a logic that supports but is different from the one that organizers for those existing vehicles operate under. Here’s a sketch of a practical approach rooted in that vision that can win support for democratic social change in the short run and a majority for socialist transformation in the long run.

Fighting for “Non-Reformist Reforms”

For socialists, theory and practice must be joined at the hip. Socialists work for reforms that weaken the power of capital and enhance the power of working people, with the aim of winning further demands — what André Gorz called “non-reformist reforms.” We want to move towards a complete break with the capitalist system. Socialists, unlike single-issue activists, know that democratic victories must be followed by more democratic victories, or they will be rolled back.

Single-payer health care is a classic example of a “non-reformist” reform, one that would pry our health system free from capital’s iron grip and empower the working class by nationalizing the private health insurance industry. But socialists conceive of this struggle differently than single-issue advocates of Medicare for All.

Socialists understand that single payer alone cannot deal with the cost spiral driven by for-profit hospital and pharmaceutical companies. If we do achieve a national (or state-level) single-payer system, the fight wouldn’t be over; socialists would then fight for nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry. A truly socialized health care system (as in Britain and Sweden) would nationalize hospitals and clinics staffed by well-paid, unionized health care workers.

Socialists can and should be at the forefront of fights like this today. To do so, we must gain the skills needed to define who holds power in a given sector and how to organize those who have a stake in taking it away from them. But we can’t simply be the best activists in mass struggles. Single-issue groups too often attack a few particularly bad corporate actors without also arguing that a given crisis cannot be solved without curtailing capitalist power.

Socialists not only have to be the most competent organizers in struggle, but they have to offer an analysis that reveals the systemic roots of a particular crisis and offer reforms that challenge the logic of capitalism.


Building a Majority

As socialists, our analysis of capitalism leads us to not just a moral and ethical critique of the system, but to seeing workers as the central agents of winning change.

This isn’t a random fetishizing of workers — it’s based on their structural position in the economy. Workers have the ability to disrupt production and exchange, and they have an interest in banding together and articulating collective demands. This makes them the key agents of change under capitalism.

This view can be caricatured as ignoring struggles for racial justice, immigrant rights, reproductive freedom, and more. But nothing could be further from the truth. The working class is majority women and disproportionately brown and black and immigrant; fighting for the working class means fighting on precisely these issues, as well as for the rights of children, the elderly, and all those who cannot participate in the paid labor market.

Socialists must also fight on the ideological front. We must combat the dominant ideology of market individualism with a compelling vision of democracy and freedom, and show how only in a society characterized by democratic decision-making and universal political, civil, and social rights can individuals truly flourish.

If socialist activists cannot articulate an attractive vision of socialist freedom, we will not be able to overcome popular suspicion that socialism would be a drab, pseudo-egalitarian, authoritarian society. Thus we must model in our own socialist organizations the democratic debate, peaceful conflict, and social solidarity that would characterize a socialist world.

A democratic socialist organization that doesn’t have a rich and accessible internal educational life will not develop an activist core who can be public tribunes for socialism. Activists don’t stay committed to building a socialist organization unless they can articulate to themselves and others why even a reformed capitalism remains a flawed, undemocratic society.


The Power of a Minority

But socialists must also be front and center in struggles to win the short-term victories that empower people and lead them to demand more. Socialists today are a minority building and pushing forward a potential, progressive anti-corporate majority. We have no illusions that the dominant wing of the Democrats are our friends. Of course, most levels of government are now run by Republicans well to the right of them. But taking on neoliberal Democrats must be part of a strategy to defeat the far right.
Take the Democrats, who are showing what woeful supposed leaders of “the resistance” they are every day. Contrary to the party leadership’s single-note insistence, the Russians did not steal the election for Trump; rather, a tepid Democratic candidate who ran on expertise and competence lost because her corporate ties precluded her articulation of a program that would aid the working class — a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, free public higher education.

Clinton failed to gain enough working-class votes of all races to win the key states in the former industrial heartland; she ended up losing to the most disliked, buffoonish presidential candidate in history. If we remain enthralled to Democratic politics-as-usual, we’re going to continue being stuck with cretins like Donald Trump.

Of course, progressive and socialist candidates who openly reject the neoliberal mainstream Democratic agenda may choose for pragmatic reasons to use the Democratic Party ballot line in partisan races. But whatever ballot line the movement chooses to use, we must always be working to increase the independent power of labor and the Left.

Sanders provides an example: it’s hard to imagine him offering a radical opening to using the “s” word in American politics for his openly independent campaign if he had run on an independent line. Bernie also showed the strength of socialists using coalition politics to build a short-term progressive majority and to win people over to a social-democratic program and, sometimes, to socialism. Sanders gained the support of six major unions; if we had real social movement unionism in this country, he would have carried the banner of the entire organized working-class movement.

Bernie’s weaker performance than Clinton among voters of color — though not among millennials of color — derived mostly from his being a less known commodity. But it also demonstrated that socialists need deeper social roots among older women and communities of color. That means developing the organizing strategies that will better implant us in the labor movement and working-class communities, as well as struggles for racial justice and gender and sexual emancipation.

Socialists have the incumbent obligation to broaden out the post-Sanders, anti-corporate trend in US politics into a working-class “rainbow coalition.” We must also fight our government’s imperialist foreign policy and push to massively cut wasteful “defense” spending. We should be involved in multiracial coalitions, fighting for reforms like equitable public education and affordable housing.
Democratic socialists can be the glue that brings together disparate social movement that share an interest in democratizing corporate power. We can see the class relations that pervade society and how they offer common avenues of struggle. But at 25,000 members, we can’t substitute ourselves for the broader currents needed to break the power of both far-right nativist Republicans and pro-corporate neoliberal Democrats.

We have to work together with broader movements that may not be anti-capitalist but remain committed to reforms. These movements have the potential to win material improvements for workers’ lives. If we stay isolated from them, we will slide into sectarian irrelevance.

Of course, socialists should endeavor to build their own organizational strength and to operate as an independent political force. We cannot mute our criticism against business unionist trends in the labor movement and the middle-class professional leadership of many advocacy groups. But in the here and now, we must also help win those victories that will empower workers to conceive of more radical democratic gains. Our members are disproportionately highly educated, young, male, and white. To win victories, we must pursue a strategy and orientation that makes us more representative of the working class.


Grasping the Moment

In the final analysis, socialists must be both tribunes for socialism and the best organizers. That’s how the Communist Party grew rapidly from 1935-1939. They set themselves up as the left wing of the CIO and of the New Deal coalition, and grew from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand members during that period.

The Socialist Party, on the other hand, condemned the New Deal as “a restoration of capitalism.” In saying so they were partly right: the New Deal was in part about saving capitalism from itself. But such a stance was also profoundly wrong in that it distanced the Socialist Party from popular struggles from below, including those for workers’ rights and racial equality that forced capital to make important concessions. This rejection was rooted in a concern that those struggles were “reformist”; it led the SP to fall from twenty thousand members in 1935 to three thousand in 1939.

Of course, there are also negative lessons to be learned from the Communist growth during the Popular Front period. They hid their socialist identity in an attempt to appeal to the broadest swath of Americans possible. When forced to reveal it, they referred to an authoritarian Soviet Union as their model. And by following Moscow’s line on the Hitler-Stalin Pact and then the no-strike pledge during World War II, the party abandoned the most militant sectors of the working class. Thus, the Communists put themselves in a position that prevented them from ever winning hegemony within the US working-class movement from liberal forces.

Still, the Popular Front was the last time socialism had any mass presence in the United States — in part because, in its own way, the Communists rooted their struggles for democracy within US political culture while trying to build a truly multiracial working-class movement.

The road to DSA becoming a real working-class organization runs through us becoming the openly socialist wing of a mass movement opposed to a bipartisan neoliberal consensus. If we only become better organizers, with more practical skills in door-knocking and phone-banking and one-on-one conversations, we will likely see the defection of many of our most skilled organizers who will take those skills and get jobs doing “mass work” in reformist organizations.

Such a defection bedeviled DSA in the 1980s, leading to a “donut” phenomenon — thousands of members embedded in mass movements, but few building the center of DSA as an organization. We must avoid this. Simultaneously, if we don’t relate politically to social forces bigger than our own, DSA could devolve into merely a large socialist sect or subculture.

The choice to adopt a strategy that would move us towards becoming a mass socialist organization with working-class roots is ours. This is the most promising moment for the socialist left in decades. If we take advantage of it, we can make our own history.

About the Author
Joseph M. Schwartz is the national vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, and professor of political science at Temple.
Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin.

New Filipino socialist online magazine launched!

Partido Lakas ng Masa has launched Ang Masa online. It is the online version of the party's periodical of the same name. The website is www.angmasa.com.

The thing looks neat. But what's more significant is that it's one of the few non-ND magazines of the Left available online. Earlier, the Center for Peoples Media was also launched, providing multi-sectoral grassroots struggles coverage in the Philippines.

Duterte's Martial Law stands on weak ground

Rodrigo Duterte has reportedly extended Martial Law in Mindanao until December. That act by Congress is brazen, considering that the survey numbers on Martial Law point to its shaky foundations on the public.

• SWS reports that on a national view, 57% of Filipinos support Martial Law for the whole of Mindanao. What the SWS doesn't say is that net approval on the same is only +17. Net approval is approval minus disapproval, and disapproval for Martial Law for the whole of Mindanao is quite high at 40%.

• Filipinos approve of Martial Law only in Mindanao. They don't want Martial Law for the Visayas and Luzon.

Filipinos may approve of Martial Law to address the war in Mindanao. It's an entirely different matter outside of Mindanao, where approval for Martial Law drops down to 20% (but more on this later).

Should Duterte think of bringing ML to the national capital, he will face significant opposition. Almost seven out of 10 Filipinos disagree with Martial Law being implemented in Luzon. Note that this figure is higher than the national public approval for Martial Law in Mindanao, which is only 57%.

• In fact, the 20% public approval for Martial Law in Luzon is only a result of respondents from Mindanao pulling the averages. Without Mindanao respondents, approval for Martial Law drops down to only 13% of the population. Mindanaoans very highly approve of Martial Law for the entire country. Respondents from Mindanao are the only category of respondents with a net positive approval for Martial Law. Why is this?

Well, for one, they're the ones getting inconvenienced by the war. Another thing, let's not forget that Mindanao is a Duterte base. They love Duterte there.

• Support for Martial Law thus appears to be a product of 1) contingency; and 2) historical disconnect. Consider this: Approval for a Luzon-based Martial Law is highest among those within the 18-24 age bracket. This is the generation born after 1993.

Conversely, Martial Law is most unpopular among those who are aged 55 and above. Net disagreement with ML from this age group is highest at -54. They also register the highest disagreement at 71%. This is the group of respondents whose youngest members were born in 1962, 10 years before Marcos' Martial Law declaration in 1972.

Support for Martial Law is contingent on the war -- on the supposed need to counter the forces of "terrorism," which is how the government has framed it. Again, the highest support comes from people from Mindanao, the people most affected by the conflict.

The same groups who support for Martial Law for Mindanao -- older people, and people from Metro Manila -- are the same ones who don't want it being implemented elsewhere. For them, this is really just about the war, and nothing else.


What do the numbers tell us, then? To counter Martial Law, I think the strategic point is to show that the war is actually over, and the enemy has been subdued. To continue getting popular support for ML, Duterte will likely play up on the people's fears and say that ISIS is still a very potent force. Toward this end, he will get a lot of help from many of the country's supposed "terrorism experts" in instilling fear among the public.

A history drive is in order. The story of Martial Law needs constant retelling. We have to bring down the 26% approval for Martial Law among the youth to 0%.

Finally, we can see that at least Duterte is still following fairly predictable behavior. He imposed ML in a region he knew would support it wholeheartedly. A Rodrigo Duterte pushing for expanding the coverage of Martial Law elsewhere will be a sign to watch out for.

For now, he has committed his first mistake -- extending a military policy that no one likes outside of his own home base.

DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE AGAINST DICTATORSHIP

We are Filipinos coming from different backgrounds, faiths and political persuasions who disagree on... many things. Some of us are from Mindanao; others from Visayas and Luzon. Some of us are workers, fishers, or farmers; others are students or professionals. Many of us are men; but many of us are also women or LGBTs. Some of us are “millennials”; but some of us are older. Some of us are convinced of the need to reform the system; but others also believe in the need for revolution.

But despite all our differences, we have come together today because of the growing threat of dictatorship.
President Rodrigo Duterte is now stepping up his attacks on the people: He has been consistent in promoting patronage politics, impunity while attacking our patrimony and the ideals of democracy and sovereignty.
Even as he promises various concessions, he continues to deny us a life of dignity and fails to deliver on basic social services. He has attacked workers by legitimizing “contractualization.” He has attacked the urban and rural poor by upholding the country’s inequitable land distribution, promoting land-grabbing, and failing to guarantee dignified housing. He threatens to attack us all by pushing for regressive tax measures that put the burden of taxation on the backs of the poor. He threatens to attack us all by pushing for a kind of federalism that will only enhance the power of warlords and political dynasties. He is depriving people of the opportunity to participate at the local level by foregoing the barangay elections.
At the same time, Duterte is also gradually putting in place a more authoritarian, if not a fascist, regime: He has imposed--and extended--martial law in Mindanao, and he has threatened to impose martial law in the entire country. We see this now as he has consolidated his grip on the legislature and the judiciary He is continuing to wage a violent ‘war on drugs’ that violates human rights and civil liberties. He has glorified the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos by burying him in a cemetery for heroes—and he supports Bongbong Marcos’ bid for the vice presidency. He has been persecuting his critics and he has constantly attacked human rights activists. He has been normalizing violence against women with his persistent reference to rape, sexist remarks, slut shaming, and macho posturing.
We have come together because all this represents a clear and present danger to us all—regardless of our class, our age, our gender and sexual orientation, and our political persuasion. A repressive dictatorship protecting an inequitable, warlord-dominated, elitist system, will not only lead to state terrorism and more widespread human rights violations, it will also take us farther away from the fairer, more just and more equal society we all dream of.
We have come together because we need each other to fight this threat and to defend our values.
Together, we commit to continue building the movement by pursuing the difficult process of building a broad but principled united front against dictatorship and elite democracy.
Together, we will fight for real democracy and social justice. Together, we will light each other’s way in this time of darkness.
We enjoin everyone to join the fight.
Harangin ang diktadura! Baguhin ang sistema!
NATIONAL CONFERENCE AGAINST DICTATORSHIP
21 July 2017
(To endorse this Declaration, or to get involved in future meetings/actions, write to blockmarcos@protonmail.com)

https://web.facebook.com/BlockMarcosNow/posts/292421974567055

REPOST: BMP: Unang Taon ng Rehimeng Duterte: Bogus na Pagbabago ng Kapitalista’t Reaksyonaryong Gobyerno

ISANG taon na ang rehimen. Kung dati’y sinasabi ng marami na maaring pagbigyan si Duterte dahil siya ay nasa transisyon pa mula sa dating meyor ng Davao tungo sa pagiging pangulo ng bansa, maari nang husgahan ang kanyang isang taon sa pagitan ng dalawang SONA.

Sa ikalawang SONA ni Duterte, ni anino ng “Change is coming” ay hindi pa rin naaaninag ng mamamayang Pilipino, laluna ng masang manggagawa. Napako ang lahat ng mga pangako. Naglaho na tila bula ang mga repormang itinalumpati para makuha ang boto ng 16 milyong Pilipino. Kung mayroon man tayong nasasaksihang pagbabago, ito ay ang tuminding kahirapan, karahasan, at kaguluhan sa buhay ng mayoryang mahihirap!

Tumitinding Kahirapan

Iba si Duterte sa nagdaang mga pangulo. Walang pretensyon sa pagiging modelo ng “good manners and right conduct” bilang pangulo ng bansa. Isang butangero. Magaspang. Matapang magsalita. Subalit iba ang kanyang ginagawa. Kabaliktaran ng kanyang mga salita.

Kontraktwalisasyon: Para sa manggagawang sahuran, ang pinakamapait na kasingalingan ni Duterte ay ang pangakong “contractualization must stop”. Sapagkat walang nagbago. Tuloy ang endo. Tuloy ang ligaya, hindi lamang ng mga contractor at subcontractor kundi ng mga prinsipal na employer na patuloy na masusuplayan ng mura at maamong kontraktwal na manggagawa. Ang nilabas na Department Order 174 ni DOLE Sec. Bello ay kabaliktaran sa ipinangako ni Duterte. Ngunit hindi siya kinakastigo ng Palasyo! Wala ring Executive Order para iwasto ang kalokohan ni Sec. Bello. Trabahong regular, hindi kontraktwal!

Tax reform: Nagmamalaki ang gobyerno na “pro-poor” daw ang kanilang panukalang pagrereporma sa sistema ng pagbubuwis. Kailangan daw ito sa mga proyekto ng “build, build, build” na papakinabangan ng taumbayan. Pero sino ang kakargo ng pasaning pagbubuwis? Ang mga mahihirap! Sapagkat ang itataas nila ang excise tax sa mga produktong petrolyo at inuming may-asukal. Pasasaklawin din ang VAT. Tatanggalin ang eksempsyon sa VAT sa renta o pangungupahan na nagkakahalagang P10,000 kada buwan.

Tataas ang presyo ng mga bilihin sa balak na tax reform. Sapagkat ang pangunahing dadagdagan ng tax ay ang produktong petrolyo, na ginagamit sa transportasyon ng mga tao at mga produkto – at sa paglikha ng kuryente. Tataas ang upa ng mga maliit na komersyante, dahil sa VAT, at babawiin nila ito sa presyo ng kanilang mga paninda. Hindi na din eksempted sa VAT ang low-cost at socialized housing!

Nagkukunwari pa silang ibabalanse daw ang sistema ng pagbubuwis dahil itataas sa P250,000 ang eksempsyon sa personal income tax. Kalokohan! Ang milyon-milyong manggagawa, na karamiha’y kontraktwal sa maliliit na mga establisyemento at kumikita ng minimum wage, ay hindi na kinakaltasan ng withholding tax. Ang mahihirap na 60% ng mga pamilyang Pilipino ay hindi nabubuhay sa sahod, kumikita ng mas mababa sa minimum wage, at nasa underground economy. Hindi sila kasali sa income tax exemption! Ang mga mayayaman ang mas makikinabang sa pagtataas ng eksempsyon sa income tax! At tila hindi pa sila nasiyahan dito, ibaba din nila ang buwis sa kita ng mga korporasyon at estate tax (buwis sa mga pag-aari ng isang yumao bago ipamana sa kanyang benepisyaryo). Tax the rich, not the poor!

Mababang sahod. Nananatili ang kontraktwalisasyon. Mababa pa rin ang sweldo. Hindi na nga sapat para mabuhay ng disente’t marangal ang isang pamilya ng manggagawa. Lalo pa itong liliit sa pagsasabatas ng TRAIN o Tax Reform Acceleration and Inclusion sa 2018, na magtataas sa presyo ng mga bilihin at magbabagsal sa tunay na halaga ng sweldo. Isabatas ang living wage, buwagin ang mga wage board!

Demolisyon at pabahay. Sabi ni Duterte, wala raw madedemolis kung walang relokasyon. Subalit maraming pampublikong proyekto – kasama ang mula sa mga local government, ang nagreresulta sa pwersahang ebiksyon ng mga maralita, kahit hindi pa naisasayos ang kanilang relokasyon.

Ilan lamang dito ang sa Tatalon sa Quezon City, sa Minuyan sa Bulacan, at Langaray Market sa Malabon. Dadami pa ito sa binabalak na “golden age of infrastructure” sa termino ni Duterte. Wala pa ring policy ang Palasyo ukol sa mura at disenteng pabahay sa masang maralita.

Kaya’t sa mga proyektong pang-relokasyon (tulad ng nabulgar sa pabahay na inokupa ng Kadamay sa Bulacan), nananatili ang problema ng kawalan ng serbisyo. Malayo sa hanapbuhay, sa paaralan, sa ospital, atbp. Nasa liblib na karatig-probinsya ng Metro Manila. Minsa’y problema pa ang mismong linya ng tubig at kuryente. Ang masahol, napakamahal pa! Kaya’t tuloy pa rin ang problema ng foreclosure sa mga residenteng hindi makapagbayad ng mga amortisasyon, atbp. Binabawi lamang ng bangko. Habang tumatabo sa tubo ang mga real estate developer, mga opisyal ng local government, at mga bangko’t pinansyer, na tanging nakinabang sa mga proyektong pabahay ng gobyerno. Maayos na relokasyon bago demolisyon! Ipatupad ang Konstitusyunal na probisyon sa mura, ligtas at disenteng pabahay para sa masa!

Pag-atake sa oligarkiya. Aatakehin daw ni Digong ang “oligarkiya” o ang iilang mga pamilya na patuloy sa pagyaman sa kabila ng lumalalang kahirapan ng nakararami. Noong Agosto 2016, ang pinagsamang pagaari ng 50 pinakamayaman sa bansa ay nagkakahalagang $79.47 Bilyon o 27.58% ng gross domestic product o GDP. Mas mataas kumpara noong 2013, na nasa $65.8 Bilyon o 24% ng GDP.

Katunayan, ang pondong tutustos sa mga proyektong pang-imprastraktura ng Dutertenomics - na nagkakahalagang walo hanggang siyam na trilyong piso (P8-9 trilyon) hanggang 2022 - ay magmumula sa bagong buwis (na papasanin ng mahihirap) at bagong mga pautang.

Sa mga uutangin, 80% ay mula sa mga domestic loans (ibig sabihin, BDO ni Henry Sy, BPI ni Ayala, Metrobank ni Ty, RCBC ni Yuchengco, atbp. na pawang mga oligarkiyang sinabi ni Duterte na kanyang tutugisin!). Habang 20% ang mula sa dayuhang pautang (kasama ang Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank o AIIB), na pinangunahan ng Tsina at kanyang binantaan noon laban sa paghihimasok at pag-angkin sa mga isla sa West Philippine Sea!). Redistribusyon ng yaman!

Pag-atake sa Estados Unidos: Si Duterte raw ay para sa isang “independyenteng patakarang panlabas”. Ayaw daw niya sa panghihimasok ng Amerika. Ngunit hindi niya nilalansag ang kasunduang militar gaya ng Mutual Defense Treaty, Visiting Forces Agreement, Enchanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, atbp. Bumaliktad din siya sa mga nauna niyang pagkontra sa pagpasok ng tropang Amerikano, pinayagan niya itong sumali sa operasyon laban sa grupong Maute. Lansagin ang dominasyon ng imperyalistang Amerika sa ekonomya’t pulitika ng bansa!

Pagwasak ng Kalikasan at Pagmimina. Dati animo’y kumakampi si Duterte kay Gina Lopez para proteksyunan ang kalikasan. Subalit hinayaan niya itong malaglag sa Senado. Binabawi na ni DENR Sec Cimatu ang mga suspensyon sa pagmimina na iginawad ni Lopez. Ang pagkawasak sa kalikasan ang sisira sa agrikulturang pangunahing ikinabubuhay ng ating mga kababayan sa kanayunan. Labanan ang mapanira at malakihang pagmimina at pagtotroso!

Umiigting na Karahasan at Kaguluhan

Panghuli, at higit sa lahat, sa unang taon ni Duterte, naging saksi tayo sa kaliwa’t kanang patayan at pagkawalang-bahala sa proseso ng batas. Libo-libo na ang pinatay ng “War on Drugs”, karamiha’y mga mahihirap na adik at tulak. Ngayo’y idinidikit na nila ang isyu ng droga sa gyera kontra terorismo. May mga nagpapanukala pang patagalin at/o palawigin ang Batas Militar sa buong bansa upang magamit ang kamay na bakal na estado sa lahat ng kalaban ng republika.

Nililikha ng mga pwersa ng reaksyon ang isang klima ng takot, pananahimik, at pag-aatubiling punahin ang mga ginagawa ni Duterte, na kung hahayaang magtagumpay ay tutungo sa tuluyang paglusaw sa ating mga demokratikong karapatan. Laluna sa kalayaang lumaban sa pang-aapi’t pang-aabuso ng iilang mayyaman at may-kapangyarihan - sa pamamagitan ng malayang pagtitipon, sama-samang pagkilos, at sariling pag-oorganisa.

Ang klima ng takot at pagsawalang-kibo ang pinakapaborableng kondisyon para sa malawakang pandarambong, hindi lang ng mga burukrata’t opisyal na magpipiyesta sa pinalaking buwis na kokolektahin ng gobyerno kundi ng mga malalaking kapitalista magiging kasosyo’t pinansyer sa mga proyektong pangimprastraktura, mga kontrata sa pagtotroso at pagmimina, at sa lahat ng likas at likhang yamang mula sa kalikasan at paggawa sa Pilipinas. Labanan ang pasistang atake sa mga kalayaang sibil at karapatang pantao!

Mga kauri at kababayan! Huwag tayong magpaloko sa mga pretensyon ni Duterte. Bogus ang ipinangakong pagbabago ng “Change is coming”! Kiskisin natin ang nakalambong na ilusyon upang tumambad sa atin na ang kasalukuyang pangulo ay tagapagpatupad lamang ng interes ng malalaking kapital. Ito ang katotohanang aming ipinababatid sa milyon-milyong umaasa pa rin sa kanilang bulaang manunubos. Sama-sama nating isulong at ipagtanggol ang ating mga karapatan at kabuhayan tungo sa tunay na pagbabagong matagal nang inaasam ng manggagawa’t mamamayang Pilipino. #

 

Original Post: https://web.facebook.com/notes/bukluran-ng-manggagawang-pilipino/unang-taon-ng-rehimeng-duterte-bogus-na-pagbabago-ng-kapitalistat-reaksyonaryong/1458721090888497/

A definition for Socialism

In his recent article for the New York Times, Jacobin Magazine founder Bhaskar Sunkara writes:

Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. In an era when liberties are under attack, it seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives. A huge state bureaucracy, of course, can be just as alienating and undemocratic as corporate boardrooms, so we need to think hard about the new forms that social ownership could take. 

Some broad outlines should already be clear: Worker-owned cooperatives, still competing in a regulated market; government services coordinated with the aid of citizen planning; and the provision of the basics necessary to live a good life (education, housing and health care) guaranteed as social rights. In other words, a world where people have the freedom to reach their potentials, whatever the circumstances of their birth.

 How do we get there?

That project entails a return to social democracy. Not the social democracy of François Hollande, but that of the early days of the Second International. This social democracy would involve a commitment to a free civil society, especially for oppositional voices; the need for institutional checks and balances on power; and a vision of a transition to socialism that does not require a “year zero” break with the present.

Of course, in the Philippines, true believers within the Left have automatic contempt for the "SD" word, helped in no small way by Akbayan which ended up as an apologist for a neoliberal regime . But as Philippine society descends into barbarism, perhaps it is time to think of alternatives to the RA-RJ paradigm?

Duterte hits peak public satisfaction rating -- SWS

Although Rodrigo Duterte's approval rating went down in March (a separate survey conducted by SWS rival Pulse Asia), SWS's most recent report showed Rodrigo Duterte attaining a satisfaction rating of +66. "Satisfaction" is the difference between "satisfied" and "dissatisfied" respondents.

This net satisfaction rating is the highest since Duterte took office. The results probably should not come as surprising. It is expected, in the sense that net satisfaction does not really drop dramatically until an administration's third year. Duterte's public net satisfaction also traces the pattern of presidents past, with the exception of the Aquino II regime. Note that Aquino II still has the highest average entire-term public net satisfaction compared with all post-EDSA presidents.