Tuesday, June 7, 2011

"Heroic" Capitalism?

"Heroic" Capitalism?

Sounds ridiculous, as Capitalism can't be "Heroic" as it degenerates society in all spheres and represses the great mass of people regardless of its progression.

At first, we may call it "Heroic" especially due to its dynamism and progression; yet in fact these countries, especially those controlled by rotten societies trying to "develop" into "progressive" ones tend to vent such sentiments in it-especially for the sake of retaining the features of the rotten social order, analogous to an old, dilapidated house having a fresh coat of paint in it as the idea of an "Heroic", "Dynamic" Capitalism may sound attractive enough to please the people and think that Capitalist societies benefits everyone; yet as evidenced by the realities happened around the world, "Heroic" Capitalist societies, especially those trying to develop from its original feudal character aren't really becoming Capitalist as remnants of Feudalism remained deeply rooted to its core; during Mussolini's time Italy remained agrarian regardless of having an industrial outlet, yet despite having a young industrial sector agriculture, especially those owned by the landlords remained the dominant feature of the society.

The Philippines tried much to become a Capitalist society in the guise of turning it into an "Agro-Industrial" state especially during the Marcos regime. During his rule, agrarian reform was "enforced" by a decree, followed by various measures just to justify the country's transformation from a predominantly agrarian, feudal, into an agro-industrial society with the creation of export processing zones and creation of industries that in fact, assembly line factories owned by foreign interests, using domestic comprador bourgeoisie and landlords as its dummies. Worse? Despite these zones, the society remained feudal as agricultural, ranging from landlordism to corporate farming remained dominant in the countryside, emphasising the former so to speak.

And at first, how come Capitalism be "Dynamic" and "Heroic" if there are repressive features retained in it? Did that "Heroic" Capitalism gave birth to a strong domestic National Bourgeoisie? The government even curtailed attempts to industrialize the country especially when it comes to heavy industry! So where's the dynamism in it, manifested by a strong industrial sector and a strong, domestic industrialists willing to develop the nation? Even a common person may think of it as ridiculous and illusion in a semifeudal, semicolonial society as he himself, working 24 hours, 7 days a week yet having little or no salary, the fruits of so-called "Heroic" Capitalism!

And desperately so to speak, in regards to that idea, as every Capitalist of a comprador type, worse, a landlord, would set up measures, programs in order to make the Feudal character of the society "wither" away and telling that the society as Capitalist. Marcos' Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran, for example, became a form of sweatshop labour in a guise of a livelihood project like cottage industries, and instead of being sold domestically, were being sold in foreign establishments, such as Bloomingdales, in large numbers, and its profits end up in corrupt officials if not for foreign supporters of that said program. The Carnation's Baka-unlaran project of raising dairy cows by small time farmers was a means to generate more income by the company using the farmers as its front, substituting the latter for their company bred ones; other programs perhaps, like creation of backyard raising of cows, pigs, even poultry supported by bigger meat-producing entities like San Miguel or RFM, like the Baka-unlaran project, was also a mean to generate more income for these companies while pitting the low-earning farmworker, turning them into a peon for these entities as expected; few perhaps are those who gain benefit, and often used as propaganda to entice low-earning farmers to join in these dubious-sounding projects that in fact, toppings for Capitalist, or rather say, Semi-Feudal repression; as most owners, controllers of corporations, Comprador Capitalists, are also Landlords themselves.

Sometimes, they often apply "Leftist" rhetoric, and even supported pleas especially from the opportunist "Social Democrats" (if not in the legislature, perhaps in the cabinet), all for goddamn sake of appeasing the people! America for instance, some of its policies under the Democtatic Party often applied Social Democratic means like health care and education, that one party in Minnesota had a "Social Democratic" leaning while at the same time aligned with the Democratic party; and as expected, such policies like health care and the like somehow showed its idea that to others may ought to call as "Populist" or in case of critics-"Socialist." Using "Leftism" to justify their Capitalistic action really creates an atmosphere enticing the working class, using them to ease their "Anger" against the system like the programs alleviating poverty, providing jobs to end unemployment, free or discounted health care and education, or in other words a welfare state, perhaps are examples of desperate actions laid by a Capitalist state to make Capitalism "Heroic" and "Hopeful" for the sake of countering Socialism.

But, Does the Developing or Underdeveloped, dependent countries do so in developing the society despite maintaining every rotten feature plus a series of debts?

Upon assessing it, turning a predominantly agricultural society into an "Agro-Industrial" in a third world country seemed hopeless as those who control the society tried much to maintain the rotten features such as a predominantly backward Agricultural method, limited industry, and of course reliance to foreign goods and aid; the "Cheap Labour" policy for foreign entities further creates an atmosphere of worriness as more and more people, promising a stable way of life are still living in abrupt poverty due to the repressive conditions laid upon by the system. Such actions, programs created for the sake of "Development" are merely acted as propaganda for sake, like Nicaragua during the Somoza era, its profits gained are being accumulated to a single person, clique controlling the entire nation while those who supposedly benefited from that program remained as it is. After all the programs are oftentimes supported by debts and aid that takes a long year to be paid off-that made us still left behind regardless of what is set forth into, creating a question like this:

"Why are we still poor despite having these things created away?
Are these all debts to be paid?"

Well... since the history of the Philippines is the saga of a people who sailed the seas and reshaped the land to create better conditions of life for themselves; then it is also the saga of struggles that it involves taking off the lives of their oppressor kind and trying to reshape again the land, the society itself gearing towards a dream that the system may say as 'far too reach'.