By Max Lane
The Manila Rizal Branch of the Communist Party of the Philippines — known as MR — comprises about 5000 members and has influence within a range of organisations with a base of 120,000 people even in quiet times. Visiting Manila for three weeks in September-October, I met with many of the leaders and activists of MR as well as other organisations on the left.
The whole of the left is in a process of realignment and reassessment, largely as a result of the initiative taken by MR in response to moves by the CPP National Executive and its chair, Jose Maria Sison alias Armando Liwanag.
Sison and the National Executive forced the adoption of a policy calling on the party to return to Mao Zedong Thought, especially to the Maoist doctrine that revolutionary strategy should be based upon a protracted guerilla war in which a rural guerilla army gradually tightens its grip on the cities until the system collapses.
Formulation of this document, which analysed the last 10 years of the CPP's experience, took place in the absence of any organised party-wide discussion. It was adopted by a meeting of the Central Committee at which a number of senior leaders were not present. The document, many of whose ideas had already been criticised by many leaders and activists, also called for a "rectification movement" targeted at all those who had committed deviations.
A purge began in party organs under the control of the National Executive while discontent spread among the membership. While it was true that the movement faced many unresolved questions and had experienced some setbacks, many activists told me, how could such a rich and complex experience of party building, people's warfare and campaigning be analysed without the whole membership's participation?
Worse, the documents portrayed the record of the party during the 10 years in a generally negative light, downplaying the advances made by the movement.
In this situation, several sections of the party leadership began to revolt. These included MR, the Visayas region (covering the islands of Negros, Panay, Cebu, and parts of Samar/Leyte), and Central Mindanao. In addition, the International Department of the CC, based in Holland, its Home Bureau and the Peasants Secretariat revolted.
Making the most decisive break were the leaders of MR. They set in motion a process which is transforming their section of the party. It began with a discussion in which the scores of major documents that had been written by leaders and activists both for and against the National Executive position were circulated to all party groups.
The MR leadership launched its own criticism of the methods of the national leadership, characterising it as feudal, absolutist and Stalinist. At the end of several months' discussion and with support of over 90% of all party members in MR, the regional committee in July declared its autonomy from the Central Committee.
The MR called for a unity congress at which all views could be presented. Meanwhile, out of the discussion and critique came demands for major reforms. There must be regular congresses — there had been no congress since the first one in 1968. Leadership must be elected at all levels by the membership, not coopted from above. All documents should be circulated and discussed by the membership before being adopted. There should be free and open debate before decisions are made and then unity in action until they are tested.
According to Carlos Forte, all these things were a part of the real "Bolshevik spirit". The consensus among party leaders and activists was that democratic centralism should also allow the formation of factions inside the party which could argue for their positions freely.
In all my discussions with cadre, this spirit of democratisation was very evident. Everybody wanted to discuss everything. Everybody wanted more contacts with communists around the world who were also struggling to build disciplined and democratic fighting parties.
In a long discussion with Carlos Forte, he outlined some of the reforms they expected to be in place by early 1994. New rules would end cooption and require all party positions to be subject to elections. There would be procedures to allow the membership to recall leaders. There would be an elected commission to make sure that party rules were adhered to, especially by the leadership.
Stalin and Mao
"All previous ideological bases are being reviewed", Forte told me, "and we are especially studying Marx and Lenin and subjecting Stalin and Mao to criticism". They were reviewing the Stalinist and Maoist ideas on a two-stage revolution and re-reading what Lenin had to say on this question.
"At the moment there seems to be no real link between the national democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. It is as if socialism is artificially superimposed on the democratic revolution. We want to study what Lenin had to say on the idea of the uninterrupted revolution. What is the proletarian position on this, on the transition to the socialist revolution? The Maoist position, this artificial imposition of socialism, seems to reflect a more petty- bourgeois viewpoint, just as Maoist philosophy is more Taoist than Marxist — yin and yang-ism."
The changes that he expected to flow from destalinisation would also affect practical politics and strategy. "We will reject the idea that protracted guerilla struggle can define, can be equated with the revolutionary strategy as a whole. The theory of protracted people's war remains valid as a military strategy in the countryside.
"But this military theory for countryside war does not add up to a strategy for revolutionary victory, which is a political, not military, question."
Forte explained that all forms of struggle, including guerilla warfare, mass street actions and parliamentary forms, were equally valid. "Their use and their role has to be analysed in the light of the specific expression of class struggle, in the dynamics of class struggle and not simply the military balance."
He expected that the new framework would bring greater attempts at unity of all the left forces and efforts to link up with other "positive forces". This might even include progressive elements among the military who have broken away from the Philippines Armed Forces, as well as sections of business opposed to the dominance of foreign investment. There are also potential allies amongst capitalists who are opposed to the rampant corruption.
Reforms
There would be a "more active posture by the left around the struggle for reforms. We need to erase this stereotype of the left that all we want to do is propagandise around the 'strategic line issues'. The struggle for reforms can help us accumulate strength, further the political education of the people."
He listed issues such as wages and conditions of labour, land reform and agrarian policy, the struggle for a limit on payments of the Philippines' foreign debt each year, opposition to the austerity measures insisted upon by the IMF, and to proposed constitutional reforms which would give more power to the powerful business clans.
"We can have an influence in some of the mass organisations operating at a legal level. But they must develop their own dynamism; their policies and tactics must be worked out through their own structures and members", said Forte. "This is a very important change."
Forte made it clear that there would not now be an end to military activity in Manila. "The people must learn that they need not feel constrained by the formal structures allowed by the system. We will use our military strength to expose the most despotic, rotten and corrupt elements of the ruling class. And we will try to be more creative. There will be more arrests by our armed partisans who will release their prisoners after exposing their activities."
"We will be expanding", said Forte. "Our work in the women and student sectors will expand nationally. The people want basic change. When you move about you can feel their misery and their desire for change. They don't need to be convinced about the revolution. Our problem is to give them hope that the revolution can succeed. We must provide the people with a viable alternative. That is what all these changes are aimed at."
"The other side in this struggle on the left", said Forte, "are tied to rigid and doctrinaire dogma. They are not real Marxists: they don't begin their analysis from the real existing conditions. They are not revolutionary, they can't adapt. They have only a fidelity to abstract principles."
"And they work in a purely militarist framework", Forte added. "Revolution is reduced to class hatred and war. The human aspect of the revolutionary movement is absent."
Forte remained optimistic for the rest of the movement. "Even after 20 years of difficult struggle, you can see everywhere that the activist spirit is still alive."