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

Pilipinas Forum 15: Debate on Edsa 2

Enjoy this 13-pages long exchanges and debate among members of pilipinasforum yahoogroups about the "Edsa 2 People Power Revolution" that occurred in January 2001. Being the co-founder and co-moderator of PF, also editor of the PF exchanges that I submitted to www.inq7.net (that site is now gone), I really learned a lot from the almost daily exchange of ideas from many members of the list then.
-----------

Debate on Edsa 2

February 2001

Edsa II was the successful transfer of presidential power from one section of the elite to another by the direct political action of a broad section of the population. Edsa II was by no means radical or revolutionary. Like Edsa I, Edsa II never threatened to overhaul the fundamental socio-economic hierarchies of Philippine society and never threatened to remove control of the Philippine state from the same dominant social strata.

Still Edsa II was a political moment with profound historical significance. What Edsa II evicted was a presidency supported by political dinosaurs, schooled in the comfortable cradle of martial law, accustomed to an uninformed, powerless and malleable citizenry, and given to governance which allowed a robust renaissance of the cronyism, patronage, and demagoguery. a presidency which failed to grasp the nature of its own obsolescence, and which continued to dabble in desperate conspiracies and maneuverings even as the forces of modernization were already literally closing in on it.

-- Raffy Aquino

My reservations about the world "people" and "broad section of the population" is that it is liberally construed to mean each and every Filipino (or even a majority of Filipinos). without being determined by Constitutionally sanctioned means to determine the world "people" (like referendum and general elections). I believe the danger lies in reducing representative democracy to participants in Edsa 2 and in other urban areas.

The logic behind the impeachment court is that since the Constitution will be removing a nationally-elected person out of his office, it should take a nationally-elected body to do it, and this is the reason why the Lower House cannot act as judges before the court, the Senate was the duly constituted authority to handle such cases. But the "people" went out of the streets and said that the Senate cannot do its job. How are we sure that Edsa 2 was the "sovereignty"? We thought it was, but what if it wasn't?

Institutions become weak when they fail to serve their purpose... in the crisis, their purpose was to determine the guilt of the president according to the articles of impeachment... and they were not able to execute this, ergo, institutional failure. The right to assembly is a Constitutional right, but it didn't say that we remove and replace Presidents with assemblies... so the senate compromised the process... okay, so who determines the "truth" now?

-- Poch Bermudez

As for the perception of the international community, I think, with the exception of a few, they have a positive perception with the installation of a new president. Why would representatives of different countries express their support to the administration of GMArroyo if they do not see the legitimacy of the new administration?

-- Jojo delos Reyes

They say history is written by the victors. Gloria Macapagal is in power, and I have no doubt that the best legal minds will be harnessed to give her Presidency every cloak of legitimacy possible. But here is the thing, if something were truly right is it so because of legal statutes and precedents. Is it so because of the ruling of one judge or even a hundred judges - or is something right because it is right, it is self-evident to any and the virtue of the act speaks for itself?

-- Victor Limlingan Jr.

What we have is only a partial victory, victory in a battle -- but not yet the war.

Already, some players of EDSA are acting like spoiled brats or deprived street kids grabbing for the goodies. Too much expectations on gov't give politicians and bureaucrats the reason to raise taxes, transform them into "development funds", line their pockets and just have the left-overs and crumbs trickle down to the masses -- whose leaders, in turn, cry about graft and corruption.

-- Roy Picart

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.

--------

Is Marxism Still Relevant?

Popoy represented the largest organization with a definite ideology in calling for a socialist Philippines. When he and his group splintered from Joma Sison's CPP-NPA-NDF sometime in 1993, Popoy had at least 4 reasons for doing so:

(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 Manila-Rizal Regional CPP Command, the explicit formulations are as follows:

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 Europe. At the time when Marx called religion "the heart of the heartless world, the soul of the soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people." (though rabid anti-Marxists only quote the last line and omitted the first 2 lines).

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 North Korea or Cuba? Do not the events in Russia and China discredit the case for Marxism, Leninism or Maoism as the case may be? I am guessing that their ideology was formulated in the 70's - do they account for sweeping changes in technology such as the internet? There are more Filipinos working abroad (5 million I think) versus those in Philippine Manufacturing (about 2 million I think) so what is their role in this workers rebellion.

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.