Are Leftists In The Phils. Liberal, or Is It Just The Liberals ?

"In every community there are many shades of political opinion. Among the shadiest of these are the liberals. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally." - Phil Ochs

by Carlo Cielo

Thing about Philippine culture and society is, the usual paradigms tend to not apply.

For example, if one’s social politics is potable clear water, ours is slimy sewerage. There's various structural debauchery and pollution to sift through, that others may have already overcome. Filth and trash in various layers, that once Western paradigms get cast here like the rays of light they purport to be, these often get refracted : muddled, severely distorted.

And normally doesn't settle. There's the films of grime such as landed oligarchy, bureaucrat capitalism, and neo-colonial/imperialism to deal with. They may still keep the vernacular and tone, but they get spelled out in a different context and intent; one which loses the already maudlin spirit these were supposed to have.

I've had teachers who scoff at Bush and fanatical Christian faith, yet would put SARAH PALIN to shame in their praise of corporate dictatorship. Let's just say that, soon as a prominent, debutante socialite here starts mouthing off about her being 'completely liberated', she ain't referring to freedom from patriarchal, feudal structures and constraints; she's only saying she's free from everyone else. And in ways w/c would probably not endear her to the Filipino feminists – you know, the types who'd march in the streets, fighting for actual liberation.

So true progressives here tend to scoff at the term, much less being labeled with it. And definitely, I'd be among those people.

One reason is semantics. The word 'liberal' recalls 'neo-liberal', a market fundamentalist ideology of ruthless deregulations and foreign usurpations w/c has since created more injustice - unacceptable, of course, to any self-respecting Left. Another is because it's really a bourgeois smokescreen by these dominant caciques who never meant to be liberal. Hence, a bourgeois construct in and of itself : one that is content with giving lip service to pet causes, is divorced from the conditions on the ground, and could only propose 'diplomacy' and 'politeness' in the face of open threats, including those which are legitimate.

That’s how you've got censors here supporting free speech. Or abusers espousing 'human rights'. Or militarists preaching 'non-violence'. Or rich trophy whores flaunting ‘empowerment’. Or plutocrats vying for univ. health care. Or friends of oil companies espousing green tech. Or ‘liberals' supporting a fascist. These are all perfectly acceptable in the land of impunity.

You've got sisters of land barons here scolding the farmers they deprive, and blaming their dispossession on the fact they won't take the pill !

'Liberal' can only leave a bad taste in the Fil. proletarian's mouth. To the mind of the powerless and deprived, such only seems like a buncha sympathies the well-fed could afford to have. It is so damn elitist in context, and reactionary in application, that it becomes RIGHTIST.

This is an extreme rightist nation, after all, weaned on rightist thinking, and ruled by rightist hegemony. So, whenever ‘liberalism’ rears its ugly head in these parts - say, wagging a finger to those who had to burn old chairs to keep their education - it won’t be that a few caring for the many, but a clique of right bastards flaunting ‘liberalism’. Liberalism that aims to 'spray the skies with pesticides' and exterminate the peasants, with weapons and tools funded by liberal ‘democracies’.

You see this 'freedom' ? They will hit you with it.

Once menace comes into play, the dichotomies unravel.

*****

So where was I ? Oh, yes. Feudal.


Filipino-style liberalism:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” - Adolf Hitler, 1927 [1]

"Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not. " - Adolf Hitler, 1930 [2]

Fooling people all the time.

[1] Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224-225.

[2] Carsten, Francis Ludwig (1982).The Rise of Fascism, 2nd ed. University of California Press, p.137. Quoting: Hitler, A., Sunday Express, September 28, 1930.