Since 1969, the NPA has probably had nearly 40,000 fighting members or more. I wonder: could those 40,000 people have achieved more for the Philippines if instead of forming a guerrilla army, they pooled their educational, technical, financial and entrepreneurial resources and formed a corporation?
By now their free-enterprise corporation could have spread all over the Philippines; it could have created employment and wealth for multiple thousands of Filipinos - and if there is a better system than capitalism, their corporation could have modelled it within their corporation, for the whole nation of the Philippines to envy and imitate: without firing even a single bullet. Sure, the strategy would have required diligence and self-responsibility.
But under the NPA's strategy, multiple millions of Pesos has been spent; an estimated 40,000 people have been killed or disadvantaged in the conflict; and it could be argued - without necessarily apportioning blame - that very little has been produced; and the NPA's membership is now dwindling.
So with the benefit of hindsight, which strategy would have benefited Filipinos more - a corporation, or the armed struggle? Just wondering.
This Post is not a criticism of anyone's or any Party's desire for a better life for Filipinos: we all desire that for all the people of the Philippines, and for all the people of the world. The question is: how best to achieve it.
If there are two hands in front of you, one is carrying a food and the other has a gun pointed at you. there is no way in the world that you can choose the food on the other hand without minding the gun. Sad, but thats the underlying situation in the Philippines.
ReplyDeletewhich strategy would have benefited Filipinos more - a corporation, or the armed struggle? Definitely a corporation, but to achieve that, you probably have to face arm struggle.