Talk:Bagong Alyansang Makabayan

General
Nice to see the improvements since the first draft :))) - Wikipedia is cool.

Clarification request: Someone put has been the leading party-list member in the House of Representative of the Philippines.

Can someone explain what this means? Does BAYAN Muna have more members than any other party in the House of Reps? From this link it doesn't seem to be correct: http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/rp/Philippines_government.htm


 * See . Aside from the Congressmen representing various geographical districts in the Philippines, there are slots reserved for sectoral representation. This is meant to give voice to significant minority groups that wouldn't otherwise be represented in government through geographical representation. This system is called the Party-list system for the House of Representatives. So, among the party-list members, BAYAN Muna has consistently gotten the top positions (most number of votes) among the party list in the two elections when the party-list system was included (1998 and 2001).


 * An article about Party-list System (Philippines) probably needs to be created. --seav 11:31, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

Clean-up Process
Would anyone mind if I made the references up to Wikipedia standards? Instead of a direct link to a website after the claim it would lead to a footnote or reference, which would explain the proof. Namtug 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the side-bar on the government of the Philippines should be removed. It isn't relevant and it detracts from the information about this social organization. What do you all think? Namtug 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

re Bayan Muna
The Bayan Muna (People First) party topped the partylist polls in 2001 and 2004.

This means that the party garnered the highest number of votes among all parties that joined the partylist polls.

It trounced government-sponsored parties, surrogates of mainstream parties, religious parties and anti-communist groups. This, inspite the deadly attacks on its members before, during and after the campaign period.

A party that garners two percent of all partylist votes is entitled to one partylist seat in Congress.

Bayan Muna's garnered over 10 percent of all partylist votes in 2001 and 2004, and thereby enabled it to occupy three seats in both elections.

This showing has a signal meaning to Philippine political scientific circles since it debunks the myth of left irrelevance in local politics and proved that the Left remains a potent political force to be reckoned with.

In 2004, two other parties also garnened over six but less than 10 percent.

But is it a good thing? UPDATEː can votes cast in ignorance and lack of understanding truly be an exercise of freedom? As such can BAYAN be called truly democratic? You only need to go to BAYAN's rallies and ask people there why they're there. Most of them don't know why they are there. Most are just paid. Most employees they represent only wish to work and get a pay for their families. Not bring down foreign companies or say companies have no right to profits. Responsiblebum 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is inappropriate for a Wikipedia forum. If you have allegations of BAYAN paying off members, offer your proof. Conjecture is the toy of puppeteers and sophists, not historians. It is disturbing that someone so aligned toward the group has done so much here - a testament to the entry's decrepitude and bias. 216.99.39.34 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Added criticism topic
Good day,

I just added a new topic as a place for criticisms of the group. I'm open to discussion and criticism. I have tried to be as unbiased as possible but I can't be sure. I hope it shows. ResponsiblebumOct 19, 2006

Hello,

Peoplestruth, might I ask you if you beleive everything that i said was a lie hence you erased my criticisms? May I also ask if you know if BAYAN has actually generated any jobs that were self sustaining (i.e. unsubsidized)? Responsiblebum 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

no, i'm asking for some sources to verify your claims, first. if you can substantiate what you're saying, by all means, post it up. peoplestruth

Fair enough, I've added some references. Will add rest of criticisms when I find the sources. But I would really like to know if the group has actually generated sustainable jobs for its members compatible with the group's socialist or communist ideologies. Responsiblebum 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew, just re-did criticisms. Critiques anyone? Contributions? Responsiblebum 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i'd check myself right there on ideology.... BAYAN is not socialist or communist... they are not advocating state ownership of industry, merely the end of foreign investment...  two different things. user:peoplestruth

Alright, their website was vague enough that I can't really say that. Also, nowhere it seems is the issue of sustainability discussed. Some terms could use some defining.

In addition, they may not advocate the state ownership of properties or industries but they seem to be pretty hostile to companies and property owners making profits; based on my experience and what I get from the news. They seem to act as if any profit a firm makes is already a form of exploitation. They also like to determine that value of a person's labor for themselves rather than market demand for that labor or product for that labor (i.e. Labor Theory of Value, considered an obselete and useless concept by mainstream economists). This smacks of socialism and communism. Anyway, I'll be reading more of their articles before posting again

There disussion on the evils of foreign investments appears to me like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I too disagree with the "washington concensus" and there should have been capital controls. Indeed American economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman recommended them. The latter I was sure told Mahatir to do so. But that doesn't mean foreign investments and free trade can't work. Safety nets are necessary to smoothen out painful economic adjustments (which can be fatal to some). But the safety nets must not provide perverse incentives that stifle initiative, innovation, or make parasites out of it's beneficiaries. Responsiblebum 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I would really like some constructive criticisms especially from those affiliated with the group. Responsiblebum 05:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the criticisms in the Criticism section is properly substantiated by the URLs you refer to. I would delete it all, because it's really just the debate of liberal, neoclassical ("mainstream") economics versus decommodification policies. It is irrelevant what it "smacks of" to you, as are your opinions about commies, socialists or nationalists. Unless you can make reference to a source that shows that these criticisms are being formulated by scholars or social or political actors in the Philippines or elsewhere, this section is irrelevant. For what it's worth, I've cleaned it up a little and entered my caveats. §


 * I agree. Regardless of the truth of conviction, the article is pretty clean. I think the ugly headers at the top the of the page should be removed. And as per the previous comments, I think we should follow the Encyclopedic Format of wikipedia and leave personal opinions at the ballot box. Namtug 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should immediately delete the content in the criticism section until some third party evidence is found. Perhaps we can rework this section together in the talk section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Namtug (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I sadly agree. I'm now focusing on the house bills, press statements, papers, etc. as a source of their views. And hopefully find criticism for. Responsiblebum 04:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you acting with such sincerity, Responsiblebum. This page is like a breath of fresh air, compared to where i usually hang out.

I agree: all criticisms should be rigorously sourced, and deleted until neutral third-party sources can be found to verify them. Further, i don't mind if the views of opposing parties are included, but the views of someone like, say, General Palparan needs to give a nod to probable bias.

I think an excellent standard for any criticisms included here would be that it must directly address clearly worded statements of BAYAN's official policy. In my opinion, the current references you have provided don't do that, and don't give a clear enough view of the issues involved to be of any help to the reader.

I think something like" BAYAN's policy is _______, but _______ would clearly effect things badly by _____ing and that would be a great harm. would be a suitable source, and from there you could write X criticizes BAYAN for its policy of _____, claiming it would _____. Anything else and the article risks getting bogged down in disputes over what BAYAN does or does not believe, what the actual effects would or would be, and so on.  Stone put to sky 07:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Split
It's proper to give the Partido ng Bayan and Makabayang Koalisyon ng Mamamayan separate articles, and not just be mere subsections in this article. – H T  D  12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no point. They would only end up as three stub articles. This article should be treated like the various incarnations of the Nacionalista Party and Liberal Party. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a point. They're separate entities. Erap and Jinggoy are separate articles. FWIW, the Partido ng Bayan was quite more diverse than the present-day Makabayang Koalisyon ng Mamamayan. – H T  D  08:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All three are just one party but because Communist parties are technically illegal in the Philippines, they are forced to use pseudonyms..Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno if being "all three are just one party" is true, but even if it is, we don't merge and redirect the Bayan Muna, GABRIELA, Anakpawis, etc. articles here, as they are, including PNB and MKM, are "distinct entities". Being "technically illegal" (which it isn't, as Cory legalized them in the 1980s) doesn't matter. Think of it as Bagong Alyansang Makabayan as the "umbrella organization", something like the mother company of a conglomerate. – H T  D  03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, technically speaking Bayan and the Makabayan coalition are separate entities, one is an umbrella coalition of mass organizations which are not involved in electoral politics, while the Makabayan coalition is a political party as registered with the Commission on Elections. Polnix (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bagong Alyansang Makabayan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923103414/http://www.bayan.ph/about%20bayan%20history.php to http://www.bayan.ph/about%20bayan%20history.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030713045723/http://www.codewan.com.ph/CyberDyaryo/press_release/pr2002_0807_01.htm to http://www.codewan.com.ph/CyberDyaryo/press_release/pr2002_0807_01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

National Democracy≠ Communism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
National Democracy doesn't necessarily mean communism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It was formed before the CPP was reestablished or NDF was founded. Allegations that BAYAN is communist or Maoist are unfounded and is propaganda by the government. Such claims should be backed up by reliable sources (like BAYAN explicitly admitting that they are communist). Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did they help the change from Democracy to Demonicracy
. 180.191.192.107 (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)