Kinds of democracy: Capitalist vs. Socialist
The SWS had a survey. It says that nearly 7 out of 10 Pinoys prefer democracy than any other system. There is, however, a surprising thing--nearly 30% of those polled favor authoritarianism and about 16% does not care whether they live in a democracy or not.
Such numbers are a bit interesting because it probes how deep the people's faith is in democracy. Democracy allows individuals the full enjoyment of their rights as stated in one document--the Constitution. The Constitution is the sacred agreement signed by the People and their government. It outlines the limits and delimitations of power. Government has been given the power to administer the affairs of the state, while true sovereignty rests on the People.
There is, however, an erroneous belief that if you favor democracy, you are in opposition to Socialism or even, Communism. Socialism is an ideological framework, something which one uses as a reference in analyzing or giving reason to existing reality. Democracy, in its truest definition, is something of an ideal, not an ideological belief.
It can be that you live in a Socialist democracy, the kind that exists in certain regions of the world. In our case, we live in a capitalist "democracy", two terms which are, in fact, in direct contravention with the other.
In a true democracy, rights are equal, economic opportunities are widely distributed and freely enjoyed by every member of society. Such enjoyment of opportunities, however, are limited in a capitalist system because you must have financial might to enjoy the trappings of capitalist democracy. There is an unequal distribution of the country's wealth in a capitalist system because the system rewards those who already have assets than those who are still struggling to amass some.
In a Socialist democracy, you have only your citizenship to claim the benefits under the system. Since rights are equal, and therefore, freely enjoyed by the majority. The State owns the entire territory, and claims the right to do whatever it pleases with it for the sake of the whole.
Filipinos, particularly the majority, does not mind if we exist in a Socialist democracy. What people care about are their rights are not being trampled with, that they live in harmony and peace. Peace is what a Socialist democracy wants.
There is also a stark difference between the capitalist system and the Socialist economy. The capitalist economy rests on the production and reproduction of capital, and the creation of wealth depends on the creation of capital, which is largely personal. You reap what you sow.
In a Socialist economy, wealth is created through communal activity. Since it is largely the entire mass of people who create the wealth, they are then, entitled to the benefits accrued by the system. You sow and the entire people or the State benefits from it.
Modes of production are different between the two systems. In capitalism, the relations of production centers on the way the capitalist treats the workers. The workers are expected to produce while the capitalist is expected to reap what they produce and thereafter, create the profits which are transformed into capital.
The relationship is purely antagonistic. Workers demand equal wages while the capitalist demands profits. Profits are largely enjoyed by the capitalist and none to the workers, who invested not just their physical and mental strength but their entire being in creating or producing goods.
In a Socialist system, whatever profits are accrued, it is then plowed back into the system for the entire state to enjoy. The relationship is thus symbiotic. You work for the State, and the State rewards you back. If you produce 1,000 sacks of rice, the State responds back with a corresponding and equitable system of rewards.
Such numbers are a bit interesting because it probes how deep the people's faith is in democracy. Democracy allows individuals the full enjoyment of their rights as stated in one document--the Constitution. The Constitution is the sacred agreement signed by the People and their government. It outlines the limits and delimitations of power. Government has been given the power to administer the affairs of the state, while true sovereignty rests on the People.
There is, however, an erroneous belief that if you favor democracy, you are in opposition to Socialism or even, Communism. Socialism is an ideological framework, something which one uses as a reference in analyzing or giving reason to existing reality. Democracy, in its truest definition, is something of an ideal, not an ideological belief.
It can be that you live in a Socialist democracy, the kind that exists in certain regions of the world. In our case, we live in a capitalist "democracy", two terms which are, in fact, in direct contravention with the other.
In a true democracy, rights are equal, economic opportunities are widely distributed and freely enjoyed by every member of society. Such enjoyment of opportunities, however, are limited in a capitalist system because you must have financial might to enjoy the trappings of capitalist democracy. There is an unequal distribution of the country's wealth in a capitalist system because the system rewards those who already have assets than those who are still struggling to amass some.
In a Socialist democracy, you have only your citizenship to claim the benefits under the system. Since rights are equal, and therefore, freely enjoyed by the majority. The State owns the entire territory, and claims the right to do whatever it pleases with it for the sake of the whole.
Filipinos, particularly the majority, does not mind if we exist in a Socialist democracy. What people care about are their rights are not being trampled with, that they live in harmony and peace. Peace is what a Socialist democracy wants.
There is also a stark difference between the capitalist system and the Socialist economy. The capitalist economy rests on the production and reproduction of capital, and the creation of wealth depends on the creation of capital, which is largely personal. You reap what you sow.
In a Socialist economy, wealth is created through communal activity. Since it is largely the entire mass of people who create the wealth, they are then, entitled to the benefits accrued by the system. You sow and the entire people or the State benefits from it.
Modes of production are different between the two systems. In capitalism, the relations of production centers on the way the capitalist treats the workers. The workers are expected to produce while the capitalist is expected to reap what they produce and thereafter, create the profits which are transformed into capital.
The relationship is purely antagonistic. Workers demand equal wages while the capitalist demands profits. Profits are largely enjoyed by the capitalist and none to the workers, who invested not just their physical and mental strength but their entire being in creating or producing goods.
In a Socialist system, whatever profits are accrued, it is then plowed back into the system for the entire state to enjoy. The relationship is thus symbiotic. You work for the State, and the State rewards you back. If you produce 1,000 sacks of rice, the State responds back with a corresponding and equitable system of rewards.
Tags:
capitalism
,
capitalist economy
,
concept of power
,
socialism
,
socialist economy
,
state
,
the state
Impeachment against Gutierrez illegal
People are extremely bothered by the actions of Iloilo Congressman Niel Tupas Jr. Tupas spearheaded the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez as an act of personal vendetta. Tupas, along with his father, was charged with graft and corruption. His father, the former Congressman, was summarily dismissed due to fraud and graft. Now, the son is on the warpath against the Ombudsman.
This is something which the people should consider--the Ombudsman is being prosecuted for doing its job. And this Tupas is using his position to get back at her.
Some people I chatted with says that the Ombudsman is one government agency with a high prosecution mark, something which eluded previous administrations. Despite political insinuations against her, Merceditas Gutierrez continues to enjoy high satisfaction and trust ratings simply on the strength of her record as an anti-graft crusader. Her leadership has set a precedent in how things are being done in the agency.
This impeachment should be thrown in the garbage dump.
This is something which the people should consider--the Ombudsman is being prosecuted for doing its job. And this Tupas is using his position to get back at her.
Some people I chatted with says that the Ombudsman is one government agency with a high prosecution mark, something which eluded previous administrations. Despite political insinuations against her, Merceditas Gutierrez continues to enjoy high satisfaction and trust ratings simply on the strength of her record as an anti-graft crusader. Her leadership has set a precedent in how things are being done in the agency.
This impeachment should be thrown in the garbage dump.
Reproductive Health Bill--the right of the individual against the State's
Think. If the Reproductive Health bill passes scrutiny, and the Aquino administration pushes its official policy of giving sexual education classes to schools and distributing contraceptives to poor people, who will likely benefit from this? Is it the poor couple? Nope. Using plastics has never been an effective contraceptive.
Its the ever-increasing reproductive health lobby groups headed by the manufacturers of plastic contraceptives.
Why force contraceptives use when it is not the State's function to interfere with someone's sex life? I mean, if a couple does not want to use contraceptives, why force them to?
The State wants to interfere with the personal lives of people because it means billions of pesos worth of contraceptives.
The Reproductive Health Bill is contentious and serious because it aims to interfere with the most intimate aspect of a relationship. Is the State given the right to even poke its fingers into the very personal life of people?
The Libertarian Party, in its platform, deny the state such a right.
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation." see link at http://www.lp.org/platform
Aquino's stand regarding the reproductive health bill is interventionist, just like the Church. He says that it is the duty of the State to inform the public of its right to choose whatever contraceptive it likes to use.
The question really is---is it right to do so? I mean, come on.
Every single Filipino out there knows what's available for him. Even kids know what contraceptives are, and what they're used for.
On the question of population explosion, the issue is not the use or the misuse or the non-use of contraceptives. It is the personal choice of Filipino couples.
Now, would it be okey if the State dictates to Filipino couples what they should do and should not do? Obviously, this is something very personal and very intimate for the State and the Church to even figure themselves into it.
Is there a scientific study which directly correlates unwanted pregnancies to the use or non-use of contraceptives? There is none. Is there a study which says that contraceptives are effective against the spread of AIDS? Yes, there are. But it is still inconclusive. What then is the most effective means of preventing teenagers from unwanted pregnancies or for people to avoid contracting a contagious disease such as AIDS?
Barack Obama will not meet Noynoy Aquino
It's official---there is no such one-on-one meeting between Barack Obama and Philippine president Noynoy Aquino. Why?
Maybe Obama does not want anything to do anymore with his clone, Noynoy. Noynoy has been positioned as the Filipino Obama, and really, what would the original feel? Obviously, no one wants to have anything to do with one's clone, except maybe see if he's using a toupee and you're not?
Aquino will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. He will probably be discussing things related to poverty since this is the current agenda of the world body--eradication of the scourge of poverty. Aquino will probably harp on his old campaign slogan which is erase graft and you'll get rid of poverty. Simple, but rather doubtful.
How then will Aquino pronounced to the world the efficacy of his strategy when his administration is now facing tremendous challenges related to graft and corruption?
Maybe Obama does not want anything to do anymore with his clone, Noynoy. Noynoy has been positioned as the Filipino Obama, and really, what would the original feel? Obviously, no one wants to have anything to do with one's clone, except maybe see if he's using a toupee and you're not?
Aquino will be addressing the United Nations General Assembly. He will probably be discussing things related to poverty since this is the current agenda of the world body--eradication of the scourge of poverty. Aquino will probably harp on his old campaign slogan which is erase graft and you'll get rid of poverty. Simple, but rather doubtful.
How then will Aquino pronounced to the world the efficacy of his strategy when his administration is now facing tremendous challenges related to graft and corruption?
First salvo--Santiago's Expose on Jueteng
After a long hiatus, the feisty Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago unleashed a bomb yesterday specifically identifying government officials and personalities involved in the billion peso racket called jueteng. Santiago listed all the names and came out firing. Santiago's delivery was like a volley of shots coming from an M-16 armalite rifle.
As soon as their names were mentioned, every single one in that list denies any complicity. Obviously, they would deny it. Being tagged as a jueteng lord is like having leprosy. People would definitely avoid having contact with you for one single reason---you're getting your money the most dishonest way. To rake millions every single day in jueteng, you have to have the guts to rig it. Meaning, the game is totally dishonest. It then feeds in the simple minds of the people who are motivated only by the desire to augment their poor incomes. The sham game goes to a cycle--rigging, betting, rigging, betting, then hoping.
The only reason why jueteng is difficult to erase is simple--it has history written all over its face. The game has been there since the Spanish times. The jueteng lords named are probably third or even fifth generation successors of previous gambling dons. And the sophisticated network is far modern than what the Mafia dons have in Chicago or those of the Japanese mafia. Maybe, the jueteng model is the precursor to the models being adopted by modern syndicates.
Now, why is government attacking jueteng? Simple. It wants to take part in the billion peso racket. It wants to legalize jueteng so that those millions are then taken off the streets and into the public coffers. Laudable? No.
Government should not take any part in gambling. Gambling is a moral disease. Being a moral disease, you cannot take part in it. Like I said, jueteng is somewhat like leprosy. If you dip your fingers into it, chances are, you'll catch the disease and slowly you feel that you're losing your fingers, and your hands, and then, poof!
Taking part in jueteng makes it a state policy and government should not even think of getting into this kind of business.
As soon as their names were mentioned, every single one in that list denies any complicity. Obviously, they would deny it. Being tagged as a jueteng lord is like having leprosy. People would definitely avoid having contact with you for one single reason---you're getting your money the most dishonest way. To rake millions every single day in jueteng, you have to have the guts to rig it. Meaning, the game is totally dishonest. It then feeds in the simple minds of the people who are motivated only by the desire to augment their poor incomes. The sham game goes to a cycle--rigging, betting, rigging, betting, then hoping.
The only reason why jueteng is difficult to erase is simple--it has history written all over its face. The game has been there since the Spanish times. The jueteng lords named are probably third or even fifth generation successors of previous gambling dons. And the sophisticated network is far modern than what the Mafia dons have in Chicago or those of the Japanese mafia. Maybe, the jueteng model is the precursor to the models being adopted by modern syndicates.
Now, why is government attacking jueteng? Simple. It wants to take part in the billion peso racket. It wants to legalize jueteng so that those millions are then taken off the streets and into the public coffers. Laudable? No.
Government should not take any part in gambling. Gambling is a moral disease. Being a moral disease, you cannot take part in it. Like I said, jueteng is somewhat like leprosy. If you dip your fingers into it, chances are, you'll catch the disease and slowly you feel that you're losing your fingers, and your hands, and then, poof!
Taking part in jueteng makes it a state policy and government should not even think of getting into this kind of business.