For decades, those who seek to change Philippine society have remained deeply divided over the fundamental question: what kind of society is Philippine society? Is our country still “semi-feudal” as some claim? Although the Philippines has become fully “capitalist”, has it become “backward” or “stagnant” as others claim? Or have we become a completely different kind of capitalist society?
This may seem like just a semantics issue, but there’s actually a lot at stake. First of all, should we call on students and workers to take up armed struggle to establish capitalism? Should we rely on the peasantry as the “main force” of the revolution? Should we ally with the “national bourgeoisie”? Should we support it? That’s the answer for many The strategic and tactical questions we face depend on how we grasp the nature of the country we are trying to change.
Hoping to contribute to shedding further light on this fundamental but crucial issue, I would like to discuss, as a first step in a larger, long-term project, why the leaders of the progressive movement have left the Philippines in this way. We set out to better understand how the classification was done. – and evaluate how we should approach the classification they proposed today.
What does the data show?
Interestingly, proponents of the two most influential ways of understanding Philippine society commonly cite the following observations as a basis for thinking of the Philippines as such: It is pointed out as evidence that it is “semi-feudal.” The other sees them as a basis for classifying the country as already “capitalist but backward.”
First, both note that most farmers in the country are still tenant farmers, meaning they simply rent the land they cultivate from landlords. Second, they continue to observe that farmers still make up the majority of the workforce. Third, agriculture remains the country’s main source of wealth, and its manufacturing capacity remains limited to the production of simple products. Fourth, raw materials continue to make up the bulk of the country’s exports. And finally, capital formation remains limited, according to both sides.
Noting all this, I do not begin (as others have done) by directly questioning the validity of the assumptions underpinning the various proponents’ categorizations, but instead question the extent to which their observations We thought we should start by evaluating whether it remains up to date.
One of the most respected leftist leaders still wrote in 2020, claiming that the Philippines has “not changed qualitatively” since the 1960s. “The peasant masses remain the most populous class” “Agricultural land remains the main means of agriculture” “The structure of local manufacturing has not changed at all” “The majority of exports continue to be raw sugar, copra and coconut oil.” etc.” I wanted to know what recent evidence actually tells us.
To answer this question, I first systematically compiled data collected by governments and international organizations since the 1960s. Some of it had previously been cited by supporters of the controversial classification themselves. Censuses, household surveys, income calculations, trade statistics, etc.: I have sought to consider the evidence not because I believe it can speak for itself unmediated by theory, but because it reflects our assumptions. I thought it would be helpful to verify or fix them. If necessary.
This wasn’t as easy as I expected. There’s a lot of aggregate data out there, but the more detailed data seems to be sitting in a warehouse or on a hard drive somewhere, and just finding and getting some of it can take a lot of work, visiting various offices. It took months. Furthermore, statistical agencies have redefined categories over time, making temporal comparisons impossible or only possible through tedious reencoding and recalculation.
Some of the things I found in scouring the datasets I compiled are probably already widely known, albeit still underappreciated, but many others are still constantly repeated and still widely deserved. struck me as quite surprising considering the claims made. economy.
Qualitative changes in society?
These preliminary findings are detailed in a recently published article. Philippine Sociology ReviewBut I’ll summarize them here for non-experts who may be interested.
First, the evidence shows that most agricultural producers in this country are no longer tenant farmers but small and medium-sized landowners.
Agricultural census figures from the past few decades show that the number of people who owned the land they cultivate went from just about two-fifths of all farmers in 1960 to 2012 (the last national census). In the year of the survey, this number increased to three-fifths. Meanwhile, the number of people who rent only the land they cultivate fell from two-fifths to just about one-fifth over this period.
Second, the data suggests that it is workers, not farmers, who now make up the majority of the working population – workers who make their living primarily by earning wages and salaries. There is. However, it is difficult to determine the exact size of the farmers due to various debates. Regarding its definition, it is possible to calculate different estimates based on different definitions. Using perhaps the broadest definition, farmers may have made up less than half of all workers in 2020. This is a big change from his 1960s, when farmers were employed. It outnumbers workers by more than a third. Using a more restrictive definition, farmers may now be as big as “plant and machinery operators and assemblers” and less than “service workers.”
Third, statistics show that agriculture is no longer the country’s main source of wealth, and industry has diversified away from low-value manufacturing. In 1960, agricultural products accounted for 27% of the country’s output. Industrial products account for only 25%. By 2021, the share of industrial products (18%) was almost double that of agricultural products (10%). Low-value manufactured goods (food, beverages, tobacco, etc.) accounted for 39% of all manufacturing output in the 1960s. In contrast, “machinery and transportation equipment” (i.e. high value-added capital goods) accounts for only 6%. By 2020, the latter accounted for 40% of total manufacturing output, while the former had declined to 33%.
Fourth, evidence shows that basic necessities no longer make up the majority of exports. Fifty years ago, food and agricultural raw materials accounted for nearly 90 percent of everything this country sold overseas. In contrast, “manufacturing exports” accounted for only 5%. However, by 2021, the former accounted for only 10% of total exports. The latter he accounted for 81%. Manufacturing now accounts for nine times as much of the country’s exports as necessities.
Finally, the evidence shows that capital accumulation has not remained stagnant. According to national income accounts, output per person employed in this country has tripled since 1960. “Gross capital formation” is a measure of all expenditures on factories, machinery, equipment, buildings, etc., and therefore the degree of capital accumulation has increased by more than 1500% in the last half century.
matter of life and death
Indeed, a more detailed picture of Philippine society requires the collection and analysis of more detailed data, as well as data from other sources. And of the evidence we have, there may have been problems with collection, measurement, etc. that I overlooked, and we need to consider how that affects our findings.
But the available data alone provides a strong, if still preliminary, basis for reconsidering the widely taken-for-granted claim that the country has “not changed qualitatively” over the past half-century. It seems to me that it is enough to give.
Progressives label societies as “semi-feudal” based on existing evidence until data problems are proven to be significant enough to change not just the numbers but the broader picture the data paints. I believe that the triggering observations can already be concluded. ” or “backwards capitalism” of the past is no longer true today.
However, if this conclusion is valid, a question arises. That is, if the facts that “the peasant masses constitute the largest class” or that “the bulk of exports continue to be raw sugar, copra, coconut oil, etc.” no longer apply. What should we think about the proposed classification of Philippine society based on these and other apparently outdated observations? Do they need to be clarified or redefined, or should they be completely reconsidered and come up with new, more appropriate classifications?
What goals should we, as progressives, be striving for in the near future? Should we call on the oppressed to launch a “bourgeois revolution?” and how should we relate to the Marcos presidency? In the 1960s and today, our ability to correctly answer these questions and change society for the better still relies heavily on our ability to properly grasp the character of society. – Rappler.com
Dr. Herbert Dossena is a sociologist and adjunct lecturer at UP Diliman. For more information, including where the data presented here came from and how the estimates were calculated, please review the journal article on which this essay is based. here.