Although I have stopped being a Marxist-socialist by early 90s, somehow I still have some "hang-over" on some Marxist concepts until early 2000s. Here's one such discussion a decade ago, on the relationship between a political party and the state. This is 7 pages long, enjoy.
------------
State-Party Relations
January 2001
Nonoy, et al, Sometime ago I curiously read an article about certain communist intellectuals (not identified) talking about the time when there will be "separation of Party and state" ... just as the separation of church and state in capitalist countries.
They'd mean that the Party would just exert ideological influence and persuasion, not state or police power, to groups of individuals vying for public office over state policies and welfare.
If such were to happen and together with a genuine Bill of Rights, such socialist countries like Vietnam and China would not only catch up but even outdistance western countries. By then there would be a global convergence: social democracy (of the east) = democratic capitalism (of the west).
- Roy Picart
Roy, My understanding of state-party relations is:
(Pol.) Party - defines & explains the policies to the people, must aim to capture state power to implement said policies;
State - implements policies of the victorious pol. party. Though often in multi-party countries, the victorious pol. party enters into alliances with other smaller pol. parties to get majority seats in the legislature and to broaden its mass base and support. But in one-party states like China, Vietnam, N. Korea and Cuba, no need for party alliances as the opposition is always weak.
So in this definition, party-state separation of function is inherent in multi-party states. Such separation of function is also possible in one-party, communist governments. In slowly-democratizing communist govts. like China and Vietnam, state leaders and bureaucrats are not entirely accountable to their respective communist parties but to the general population, majority of whom are not party members. State leaders are striking a balance between their party (which is generally allergic to drastic reforms) and the general public (who want fast, wide-ranging economic liberalization and political democratization).
On social democracy, these are essentially the democratic capitalist states of the west at the moment. Specifically, the welfare states of Scandinavian and Western European countries. These capitalist countries sometimes turn off capitalist enterprises because of the high taxes which their govts. collect to give to the jobless (sometimes encouraging laziness), the sick, to subsidize their farmers, etc.
The convergence that you mention is actually happening now: capitalist countries that act like socialist states, and socialist countries that allow predominance of capitalist enterprises. Vietnam is a socialist country, but the streets of Hanoi, Saigon, Hue, etc. are full of tens of thousands of capitalist enterprises. China is a socialist country but Shanghai, Shenzen, even Beijing, are full of capitalist shops and firms.
Someday, ideologies will become good academic subjects in the schools worldwide, but they will lose their original spirits. They will soon converge with one basic ingredient that unifies their aspirations: information. Information will uplift world economies, substantially reduce poverty as we know it today. But information will never be made perfect for everyone. Just as the next guy has discovered his neighbor's "trade secrets", this neighbor has already developed a new product or service that is far superior to the one that was discovered by his competitor.
- nonoy
Dear Noy and Roy and All:
State-Party Relations:
Classical Marxism situates the relations between state and party within the framework of socialism as the class rule of the proletariat, and socialism as a transitional phase before society could progress to classless and stateless communism. State and party relations also relate to the conept of the "withering away of the state." The classics, in fact, may provide signposts in understanding the remaining socialist experiments.
The basic theoretical postulates on this matter may be outlined as follows:
a) Capitalism is an arrangement of social classes with the bourgeoisie exercising political hegemony over all the others, through the capitalist state;
b) The socialist revolution destroys this hegemony and transfers state power to the proletariat. Hence, Lenin defines socialism as "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or "the proletariat organized as the ruling class";
c) The immediate function of the socialist state is to preserve the dominance of the proletariat, and to serve as the coercive instrument of the the working class. This coercive role means defending the Communist Party and defeating its class enemies, since the CP is the repository of the will of the ruling class (the proletariat). Note that the socialist state, as with all other states, remains a coercive organ of power, existing within society but also above it;
Showing posts with label Roy Picart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roy Picart. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Pilipinas Forum 24: Minimal Government Manifesto
I posted the Manifesto in PF yahoogroups in late March 2004, it attracted several comments until mid-April 2004 from friends and supporters. Here are the major comments. As usual with other PF series, get your fave drinks and snacks, this is 14 pages long.
The Minimal Government Manifesto
Minimal Government = Minimal Bureaucracy = Minimal Taxes.
Smaller government appropriation from our hard-earned income = Greater individual freedom where to spend or save their hard-earned money.
Smaller government restrictions in movement of goods, services and people = Greater individual freedom where they will work, invest, trade, travel, rest and retire.
---------------------------------------------
In the beginning of human civilization, at primitive hunting societies, men learned to trade with each other. The animal hunters traded their excess animal catch with fish hunters for the latter's excess fish catch. Or traded with craftsmen for the latter's carpentry, musical instruments and other artistic services. Or traded with early farmers who practiced the early technologies of agriculture. Thus, men invented the MARKET for the exchange of goods and services, and it went well. There was no government then made up by full-time administrators and enforcers of mutually-agreed rules.
Later as population and economic activities expanded, market failures arose - monopolies, oligopolies, externalities associated with production like pollution, dealing with criminals and other deviants that disrupt social order and threaten property rights, dealing with external aggressors, etc. So men invented GOVERNMENT. And government invented TAXES and various fees. Initially it went well.
Later, governments introduced government failures and inefficiencies - bureaucratic red tapes, corruption, excessive tax rates, excessive trade barriers, state-sponsored monopolies, etc. So men invented non-profit organizations, more commonly referred to as non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). Initially it went well in attempting to reform government and state failures.
Later, it became evident that "reforming government" has become an oxymoron. Bureaucracies, once created, seldom decline, let alone die. In fact, governments later invented habitual BUDGET DEFICIT Many politicians run for government positions not to reform government but to maintain, if not worsen, those state failures.
Some groups went extreme and invented communist parties and socialist parties, to make an already super-imposing state become a "Big Brother" interventionist socialist state, supposedly to "centrally plan" the basic needs of its people. Later, many socialist states could not even plan and produce how many tons of bread and rice, how many million liters of gasoline, how many pairs of jeans and shoes, will be needed by their people. Scarcity led to political instability which later led to collapse of many socialist governments, from the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe. The remaining socialist states (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) survive because they have allowed the market system to exist in the economic sphere while maintaining political monopoly.
Why reform government when markets can do the delivery of some public goods and services more efficiently?
Why reform government when some government functions can be privatized?
Why keep high and complicated taxes when many citizens are privately paying for services that should have been done by government, but failed to deliver because of government failures?
Why let government bureaucrats and politicians decide how much they should appropriate from our hard-earned income and wages, and where they should spend our hard-earned money, including how much to pay for themselves, their travels and their parties?
The Minimal Government Manifesto
Minimal Government = Minimal Bureaucracy = Minimal Taxes.
Smaller government appropriation from our hard-earned income = Greater individual freedom where to spend or save their hard-earned money.
Smaller government restrictions in movement of goods, services and people = Greater individual freedom where they will work, invest, trade, travel, rest and retire.
---------------------------------------------
Later as population and economic activities expanded, market failures arose - monopolies, oligopolies, externalities associated with production like pollution, dealing with criminals and other deviants that disrupt social order and threaten property rights, dealing with external aggressors, etc. So men invented GOVERNMENT. And government invented TAXES and various fees. Initially it went well.
Later, governments introduced government failures and inefficiencies - bureaucratic red tapes, corruption, excessive tax rates, excessive trade barriers, state-sponsored monopolies, etc. So men invented non-profit organizations, more commonly referred to as non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). Initially it went well in attempting to reform government and state failures.
Later, it became evident that "reforming government" has become an oxymoron. Bureaucracies, once created, seldom decline, let alone die. In fact, governments later invented habitual BUDGET DEFICIT Many politicians run for government positions not to reform government but to maintain, if not worsen, those state failures.
Some groups went extreme and invented communist parties and socialist parties, to make an already super-imposing state become a "Big Brother" interventionist socialist state, supposedly to "centrally plan" the basic needs of its people. Later, many socialist states could not even plan and produce how many tons of bread and rice, how many million liters of gasoline, how many pairs of jeans and shoes, will be needed by their people. Scarcity led to political instability which later led to collapse of many socialist governments, from the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe. The remaining socialist states (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) survive because they have allowed the market system to exist in the economic sphere while maintaining political monopoly.
Why reform government when markets can do the delivery of some public goods and services more efficiently?
Why reform government when some government functions can be privatized?
Why keep high and complicated taxes when many citizens are privately paying for services that should have been done by government, but failed to deliver because of government failures?
Why let government bureaucrats and politicians decide how much they should appropriate from our hard-earned income and wages, and where they should spend our hard-earned money, including how much to pay for themselves, their travels and their parties?
Friday, December 16, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 23: On Debt Repudiation
As of end-September 2011, total debt of the national government was P4.87 trillion. This is P206 billion (or 4.4 percent) larger than its year ago level. See the Bureau of Treasury (BTr) Press Release last December 09.
As of October 2011, there were 38.5 million employed Filipinos. This means that each employed Filipino, young and old, fully- or under-employed, is indebted by P126,515.00. And it's not even personal or household debt. It is government debt, to be passed on to each taxpayer in this country. That's how great, sensitive and welfarist the government is.
And there's more debt: contingent debt, mainly guarantees by the national government which can become part of the outstanding debt stock if the guarantee recipient (a government corporation or financial institution, etc.) cannot pay its debt. This is P583 billion as of September 2011. And that's how great, sensitive and welfarist the government is.
More than seven years ago, we have a lively exchange of ideas on the question: Is repudiation of public debt a good option? That was in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups.com, an online discussion group which I formed and co-moderated since 1999. The voices of "repudiate the debt" are still with us until now, coming from different sources. So perhaps these exchanges will help clarify the issue.
This is more than 20 pages long, so get your most liked snacks. Special thanks to Dr. Butch Arroyo, my batchmate from UP School of Economics in 1984, for his elaborate discussion of the subject. Butch is an Economics Professor at the Johns Hopkins Univ. in Washington, DC.
--------
On Debt Repudiation
March 2004
About debt repudiation, I am attaching below Butch Arroyo's posting in PF about the subject. He posted this in reaction to a privilege speech given by Sanlakas party-list Cong. JV Bautista, arguing for "selective debt repudiation".
As of October 2011, there were 38.5 million employed Filipinos. This means that each employed Filipino, young and old, fully- or under-employed, is indebted by P126,515.00. And it's not even personal or household debt. It is government debt, to be passed on to each taxpayer in this country. That's how great, sensitive and welfarist the government is.
And there's more debt: contingent debt, mainly guarantees by the national government which can become part of the outstanding debt stock if the guarantee recipient (a government corporation or financial institution, etc.) cannot pay its debt. This is P583 billion as of September 2011. And that's how great, sensitive and welfarist the government is.
More than seven years ago, we have a lively exchange of ideas on the question: Is repudiation of public debt a good option? That was in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups.com, an online discussion group which I formed and co-moderated since 1999. The voices of "repudiate the debt" are still with us until now, coming from different sources. So perhaps these exchanges will help clarify the issue.
This is more than 20 pages long, so get your most liked snacks. Special thanks to Dr. Butch Arroyo, my batchmate from UP School of Economics in 1984, for his elaborate discussion of the subject. Butch is an Economics Professor at the Johns Hopkins Univ. in Washington, DC.
--------
On Debt Repudiation
March 2004
About debt repudiation, I am attaching below Butch Arroyo's posting in PF about the subject. He posted this in reaction to a privilege speech given by Sanlakas party-list Cong. JV Bautista, arguing for "selective debt repudiation".
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 19: The CPP-NPA, Sison and Maoism
This should be the longest exchanges in the "Pilipinas Forum" series in this blog so far. Yes, this is 32 pages long :-) These were posted in PF yahoogroups in August 2002 or nine years ago. There should be some lessons here for those studying the Philippine communist movement.
An earlier related paper will be Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?, August 30, 2011. It's 11 pages long. Enjoy.
---------
I cautiously welcome the GMA decision to redeploy forces to fight against NPA cadres throughout the Philippines. While I fully support the fight against criminal elements and include among these any revolutionary group who resorts to armed violence against the public or the Government, I also hope that corresponding efforts will be made to protect the human rights of peaceful political opposition.
I continue to believe that economic development and respect for human rights is the best way to counter various guerilla groups. But, when any group resorts to violence in a democratic system I feel the full force of law should be applied against them. If this requires the support and direct involvement of the AFP and even funds provided bythe USA, then so be it. I would far prefer to see funds spend for economic and infrastructure development, but such expenditures also require a peaceful environment to do any good. If businesses are being extorted by NPA groups and infrastructure is being destroyed in the name of countering the 'oppression' of the people, the other improvements do little good.
I strongly believe in the right of self defense. While I understand that the members of the NPA, CCP, NDF and others feel that their revolutionary cause is a legitimate self defense against oppression, I believe the overall right of the people of a democratic society have a greater right to defend themselves from those forces who seek to impose their belief structure upon them by violence. If the CCP, NDF or even the Mickey Mouse Club for that matter, manage to go out and get themselves elected into a position of majority in a barangay, municipality, or province, then that is the will of the people and they have just cause to defend that. Short of that, however, the use of armed violence against the people's legitimately elected government is no different that criminality and that government elected by the people should treat it as such.
While I would prefer disputes to be settled peacefully, to tell the truth, I welcome Jose Ma. Maria Sison's call for the NPA to launch attacks. Let them come out in the open, let them show the common people how they are 'defending' them against oppression by cutting off their electricity and by destroying the infrastructure that has been built by their hard earned tax money. Hopefully when they come out into the light of day and show clearly who they are and what they believe they can be dealt with effectively once and for all.
I have no disagreement with legitimate opposition to the existing government, hey, I probably even agree with a lot of their charges of corruption and waste of the people's resources. But, let that opposition be heard through the electoral process. Let that opposition be felt through the right to vote. As soon as one group decides to let their opposition be expressed by armed violence they have left the side of legitimacy and have no right to decry the acts of society to defend themselves.
–Cynthia Diaz
Cynthia, I do agree with you. Sison and his brood (not only armed communist rebels) are out of mind and touch of time. I also believe that force have to be met with force, but calibrated and selective of targets because of the Bill of Rights.
However, the real enemy is within, within the mainstream. These are those who give a bad name to democracy, freedom of enterpise -- businessmen retaining a feudal state of mind towards their employees; those at home who mistreat their household help, corrupt gov't officials, demo-crazy protesters, politicking clergy, greedy and power hungry politicians, indifferent citizenry, flying voters, ....
–Roy Picart
The CPP-NPA thinks they hold the solution to the country's problems. Yet, they are the biggest obstacle to progress. Sison's call for the destruction of public utilities-which as Cynthia mentioned are built with the Pinoy's pawis-at-dugo-is a clear sign that their real target is the country's progress, however small they claim these to be. Kapirangot na nga lang-sisirain pa nila! Who do they think will pay to rebuild all these again?!! Certainly not Sison! The fail ure of Filipinos to achieve progress under the current system is the NPA's success.
Bayan Muna's "New Vietnam" scare is ridiculous. In the first place, the existence of the NPA is the cause of the very arrangement they are opposing. The NPA-and the armed violence they have continually brought society-is the root problem, then (maybe) the Americans. Before the American issue was even raised had they condemned the NPA's first (along with other terrorist groups) then maybe we won't ever need American "meddling".
Why do we need communism? Capitalism, though far from perfect, has evolved considerably from the 18th century capitalism of the industrial revolution. Even in the very countries that have adopted and spread communism, the ideology has proven to be more oppressive than capitalism. In so many years, it did not make the lives of their people better if not make them even worse. Now, China is relying on capitalism to compete in the global economy (ex., state-ownership of industries is being replaced by IPOs). As neo-capitalists, they may yet become the biggest threat to the Filipino worker and farmer... perhaps even more than the Americans ever did.
–Gilbert Cunanan
An earlier related paper will be Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?, August 30, 2011. It's 11 pages long. Enjoy.
---------
I cautiously welcome the GMA decision to redeploy forces to fight against NPA cadres throughout the Philippines. While I fully support the fight against criminal elements and include among these any revolutionary group who resorts to armed violence against the public or the Government, I also hope that corresponding efforts will be made to protect the human rights of peaceful political opposition.
I continue to believe that economic development and respect for human rights is the best way to counter various guerilla groups. But, when any group resorts to violence in a democratic system I feel the full force of law should be applied against them. If this requires the support and direct involvement of the AFP and even funds provided bythe USA, then so be it. I would far prefer to see funds spend for economic and infrastructure development, but such expenditures also require a peaceful environment to do any good. If businesses are being extorted by NPA groups and infrastructure is being destroyed in the name of countering the 'oppression' of the people, the other improvements do little good.
I strongly believe in the right of self defense. While I understand that the members of the NPA, CCP, NDF and others feel that their revolutionary cause is a legitimate self defense against oppression, I believe the overall right of the people of a democratic society have a greater right to defend themselves from those forces who seek to impose their belief structure upon them by violence. If the CCP, NDF or even the Mickey Mouse Club for that matter, manage to go out and get themselves elected into a position of majority in a barangay, municipality, or province, then that is the will of the people and they have just cause to defend that. Short of that, however, the use of armed violence against the people's legitimately elected government is no different that criminality and that government elected by the people should treat it as such.
While I would prefer disputes to be settled peacefully, to tell the truth, I welcome Jose Ma. Maria Sison's call for the NPA to launch attacks. Let them come out in the open, let them show the common people how they are 'defending' them against oppression by cutting off their electricity and by destroying the infrastructure that has been built by their hard earned tax money. Hopefully when they come out into the light of day and show clearly who they are and what they believe they can be dealt with effectively once and for all.
I have no disagreement with legitimate opposition to the existing government, hey, I probably even agree with a lot of their charges of corruption and waste of the people's resources. But, let that opposition be heard through the electoral process. Let that opposition be felt through the right to vote. As soon as one group decides to let their opposition be expressed by armed violence they have left the side of legitimacy and have no right to decry the acts of society to defend themselves.
–Cynthia Diaz
Cynthia, I do agree with you. Sison and his brood (not only armed communist rebels) are out of mind and touch of time. I also believe that force have to be met with force, but calibrated and selective of targets because of the Bill of Rights.
However, the real enemy is within, within the mainstream. These are those who give a bad name to democracy, freedom of enterpise -- businessmen retaining a feudal state of mind towards their employees; those at home who mistreat their household help, corrupt gov't officials, demo-crazy protesters, politicking clergy, greedy and power hungry politicians, indifferent citizenry, flying voters, ....
–Roy Picart
The CPP-NPA thinks they hold the solution to the country's problems. Yet, they are the biggest obstacle to progress. Sison's call for the destruction of public utilities-which as Cynthia mentioned are built with the Pinoy's pawis-at-dugo-is a clear sign that their real target is the country's progress, however small they claim these to be. Kapirangot na nga lang-sisirain pa nila! Who do they think will pay to rebuild all these again?!! Certainly not Sison! The fail ure of Filipinos to achieve progress under the current system is the NPA's success.
Bayan Muna's "New Vietnam" scare is ridiculous. In the first place, the existence of the NPA is the cause of the very arrangement they are opposing. The NPA-and the armed violence they have continually brought society-is the root problem, then (maybe) the Americans. Before the American issue was even raised had they condemned the NPA's first (along with other terrorist groups) then maybe we won't ever need American "meddling".
Why do we need communism? Capitalism, though far from perfect, has evolved considerably from the 18th century capitalism of the industrial revolution. Even in the very countries that have adopted and spread communism, the ideology has proven to be more oppressive than capitalism. In so many years, it did not make the lives of their people better if not make them even worse. Now, China is relying on capitalism to compete in the global economy (ex., state-ownership of industries is being replaced by IPOs). As neo-capitalists, they may yet become the biggest threat to the Filipino worker and farmer... perhaps even more than the Americans ever did.
–Gilbert Cunanan
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 16: On Rice Trade Liberalization
Here's another long discussion (16 pages long!) from different people, on liberalizing rice trading in the Philippines, made in pilipinasforum yahoogroups. As usual, get your popcorn or other favorite snacks while reading the exchanges 10 years ago.
------
On Rice Trade Liberalization
------
On Rice Trade Liberalization
August 2001
Theory: there is gain from trade. Trade allows people of countries who do not produce certain commodities cheaply, access to these products through imports; at the same time, trade allows people who efficiently & cheaply produce certain commodities to export these goods, giving them the foreign exchange revenue to finance their imports. Thus, countries' welfare increases.
NEDA favors early liberalization (convert present import quotas into tariffs, and later on, lower tariff rates) of rice trade since trade protection to the sector is time-bound. But DA wants to keep the quantitative restrictions (QRs) on rice.
Before, only the state-owned NFA imports rice from abroad. Starting this year, private traders will be allowed to import rice up to 20,000 MT. But they must pay a minimum "equalization fee" of P3,240/MT or P3.24/kilo for the March 2 auction, on top of the 50 percent tariff.
Current World Rice Prices. Prices as of end-February range at $190/ton for white Thai rice (5% broken, "class A") down to $150/ton (35% broken). At P48/$, this is equivalent to only P9,120/ton or P9.12/kilo for class A rice, and P7,200/ton or P7.20/kilo for lower class rice (vs. P14-P22/kilo local prices).
There is net gain from trade. The clear winners are the rice consumers, fisher folks and non-rice farmers, users of important agricultural inputs like machinery and fertilizers (the farmers themselves), among others. The losers are some Filipino rice farmers who cannot compete price-wise despite lower imported cost of agricultural inputs.
We need to hasten agricultural trade liberalization. Though the country still has 4 years to further prepare (aside from the last 6 years of preparation) for such liberalization, the perennial production deficit, and consistently high prices, of local grain and sugar, mandate that we should hasten the liberalization. The benefits generally outweigh the costs.
Rice "self-sufficiency" does not mean that we should grow all the rice that we need. Rather, we only need to ensure that rice will be made available at sufficient supply and cheap, stable prices for our consumers. This would imply a good combination of domestic production and importation. If we do our assignment well, meaning the efficient laying of important safety nets, particularly infrastructure and technology support system to our farmers, coupled with trade liberalization plan, we shall help improve our farmers' productivity and output.
-- Nonoy Oplas
Nonoy , et al,
I also strongly go for the liberalization of rice trade for the following reasons: (a) import quotas or quantitative restrictions (QR) only breed corruption, and politicking; and (b) shortages and steep local price (retail) of the stuff is imminent because its trading becomes speculative; this has happened time and time again. The unscrupulous traders and corrupt gov't officials benefit, while both the farmers and consumers suffer.
Instead of "self sufficiency," the policy and strategy should be "self-reliance" i.e. having the purchasing power. Thus the farmer may be assisted with alternative sources of income, and better infrastructure and management services. (Thanks for the facts and figures).
-- Roy P.
Pareng Nonoy and All,
I agree with the merits of rice trade liberalization, and I have to say as well that I am impressed by the neatness of the methodology used in quantifying the demand-supply gap.
Just some thoughts/views alongside the last paras of Pareng Nonoy's paper:
* Trade liberalization in general, as experienced in Latin countries (Chile, Argentina & Mexico?, 1994-1995) created some shocks esp. on the balance of payments. Often, econ analysts would suggest that long term policies like trade liberalization should be coupled with short term reforms to avoid the shocks. I hope that the government is doing some short term fine tuning as we edge towards the 10th year for rice trade lib.
* The rice trade lib should not be an excuse for government not to pursue efforts that would maximize yield of cultivated/irrigated rice lands. Land parcels are /should be classified according to best use. Those which are declared best suited for rice should be protected from conversion, and supported with infrastructure and support services to ensure productive efficiency. The demand-supply gap may be bridged by importation of cheaper rice, and the competitive price of imported rice should force local farms to be more efficient. But a widening gap through the years must not be relied more on bridging it with imports but more on achieving greater farm efficiencies. A slow adjustment to rice trade lib may kill "best-use" rice farms and force conversions. I'll make mention here the ill effects of the "impermanence syndrome". This is one of the primary killers of cultivated lands in Australia, and this syndrome has been the reaso behind major conversions in Laguna and Batangas.
NEDA favors early liberalization (convert present import quotas into tariffs, and later on, lower tariff rates) of rice trade since trade protection to the sector is time-bound. But DA wants to keep the quantitative restrictions (QRs) on rice.
Before, only the state-owned NFA imports rice from abroad. Starting this year, private traders will be allowed to import rice up to 20,000 MT. But they must pay a minimum "equalization fee" of P3,240/MT or P3.24/kilo for the March 2 auction, on top of the 50 percent tariff.
Current World Rice Prices. Prices as of end-February range at $190/ton for white Thai rice (5% broken, "class A") down to $150/ton (35% broken). At P48/$, this is equivalent to only P9,120/ton or P9.12/kilo for class A rice, and P7,200/ton or P7.20/kilo for lower class rice (vs. P14-P22/kilo local prices).
We need to hasten agricultural trade liberalization. Though the country still has 4 years to further prepare (aside from the last 6 years of preparation) for such liberalization, the perennial production deficit, and consistently high prices, of local grain and sugar, mandate that we should hasten the liberalization. The benefits generally outweigh the costs.
Rice "self-sufficiency" does not mean that we should grow all the rice that we need. Rather, we only need to ensure that rice will be made available at sufficient supply and cheap, stable prices for our consumers. This would imply a good combination of domestic production and importation. If we do our assignment well, meaning the efficient laying of important safety nets, particularly infrastructure and technology support system to our farmers, coupled with trade liberalization plan, we shall help improve our farmers' productivity and output.
-- Nonoy Oplas
Nonoy , et al,
I also strongly go for the liberalization of rice trade for the following reasons: (a) import quotas or quantitative restrictions (QR) only breed corruption, and politicking; and (b) shortages and steep local price (retail) of the stuff is imminent because its trading becomes speculative; this has happened time and time again. The unscrupulous traders and corrupt gov't officials benefit, while both the farmers and consumers suffer.
Instead of "self sufficiency," the policy and strategy should be "self-reliance" i.e. having the purchasing power. Thus the farmer may be assisted with alternative sources of income, and better infrastructure and management services. (Thanks for the facts and figures).
-- Roy P.
Pareng Nonoy and All,
I agree with the merits of rice trade liberalization, and I have to say as well that I am impressed by the neatness of the methodology used in quantifying the demand-supply gap.
Just some thoughts/views alongside the last paras of Pareng Nonoy's paper:
* Trade liberalization in general, as experienced in Latin countries (Chile, Argentina & Mexico?, 1994-1995) created some shocks esp. on the balance of payments. Often, econ analysts would suggest that long term policies like trade liberalization should be coupled with short term reforms to avoid the shocks. I hope that the government is doing some short term fine tuning as we edge towards the 10th year for rice trade lib.
* The rice trade lib should not be an excuse for government not to pursue efforts that would maximize yield of cultivated/irrigated rice lands. Land parcels are /should be classified according to best use. Those which are declared best suited for rice should be protected from conversion, and supported with infrastructure and support services to ensure productive efficiency. The demand-supply gap may be bridged by importation of cheaper rice, and the competitive price of imported rice should force local farms to be more efficient. But a widening gap through the years must not be relied more on bridging it with imports but more on achieving greater farm efficiencies. A slow adjustment to rice trade lib may kill "best-use" rice farms and force conversions. I'll make mention here the ill effects of the "impermanence syndrome". This is one of the primary killers of cultivated lands in Australia, and this syndrome has been the reaso behind major conversions in Laguna and Batangas.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?
These are the exchanges in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups that I edited, posted in inq7.net in March 12, 2001, 11 pages long. These discussions were made in February 2001.
--------
Popoy represented the largest organization with a definite ideology in calling for a socialist
(1) They reject the "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" mode of production analysis of Joma and the CPP. (2) Hence, they also reject the "national democracy" goal. (3) They reject the Maoist formulation that "the peasants (not workers) are the main army to change society" and that of "encircling the city from the countrysides", and (4) Corollarily, reject that "armed struggle is the primary form of struggle".
Instead, when Popoy and his team of underground people from the Metro
1. The Philippines' mode of production is "predominantly capitalist".
2. Hence, the goal should be socialism, not "national democracy" ("national" meaning anti-colonial, "democracy" meaning anti-feudal).
3. The workers (don't own means of production, whether capital, factories, land, technology) are the main army to change things, and urban insurrection is the way to capture state power.
4. Other forms of struggle should be tapped to complement the armed urban struggle (Hence, Popoy and his group then advocated to participate in the 1986 snap elections, whereas Joma and the CPP called for its boycott).
Between the two, Popoy is more sophisticated ideologically than Joma Sison. I would even add that Popoy read and understand classic Marxism and Leninism literature better than Joma and his followers. The ideological debate and organizational rivalry between the 2 largest factions of the Philippine left has somehow worked for their mutual advantage and the workers in general. Just like big corporations benefiting from having fellow big competitors because they all strive to be more dynamic and innovative. How?
Organized workers have more options where they will be organizationally and ideologically affiliated. Before, it was only between the moderate TUCP and the radical KMU, plus other smaller independent labor federations. Popoy's BMP (bukluran ng manggagawang pilipino) represented a 3rd or 4th option for the workers. Just like businessmen and capitalists have options whether they'll be more active with PCCI or MBC or FPI or Rotary, etc.
Second, workers should be given the opportunity to be educated of the socialist alternative, and not just the nat-dem goal. The capitalists and politicians of this country for many years have veered away from the Adam Smith and David Ricardo type of capitalism, so they (the capitalists) gave workers a really bad kind and experience of capitalism. Perhaps approximating the capitalism of the Industrial Revolution in
Where to, Philippine left? Despite my sympathy and admiration for their hard dedication to politicize and mobilize people, especially the really poorer sectors of our society, I still cannot subscribe to their sentiment that we should immune or delink our economy from globalization and the world economy, that we should keep the protectionist veil and continue regulating many of our industries and the economy, that we should not privatize subsidy-dependent state corporations, etc.
Thus, since I believe that economic liberalization and not protectionism and regulation is the way, and the Philippine left (& the left elsewhere in the world) believe otherwise, I think the Philippine left will remain as a significant political voice in our society, but there's no way that it can seize state power to implement its protectionist advocacies.
--Nonoy Oplas
Nonoy, could you expound more on the leftist agenda? What exactly do they want? Go down the road of
How does that one go, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" - socialism and communism do have their appeal but outside the Israeli Kibbutz I cannot see real sustainable successful models.
-- Victor A. Limlingan Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)