Productive debates
International Viewpoint #262 December 1994
FOR A NUMBER of years now, the Philippines Communist Party has been in the throes of a major crisis, which International Viewpoint has covered in a number of articles. In October 1994 PAUL PETITJEAN spoke with PEDRO and ANA, members of the Multi-lateral Coordinating Body (MLCB). This organisation is only one of the independent currents which has emerged from the crisis in the CPP, and in future issues we will be providing space for others from the democratic opposition to explain their views.
### PHILIPPINES
OULD you update us on the crists in the Philippines Communist Party (CPP)? PEDRO: The current crisis is not yet over — it's still in flux. For example, our comrades in what we call the "RA" faction still have to contend with the documents which Sison presented — the "Reaffirm" document and the "Stand Against Modern Revisionism" 2 They are now facing a totally different situation — very different to what is [set out] in these documents. They still believe that the revolutionary situation is raging in the country. For them, the revolutionary situation is a permanent feature of the Philippines which, they say, is due to the crisis of imperialism. They still want to behave - even now when there is no revolutionary situation - as a warring party. That entails the armed struggle rades in the RA.
As for the other opposition groups — which became independent and autonomous either because they were disenfranchised, expelled or resigned - they now face the challenge of a changed world, and a changed political climate in the Philippines too. So the situation is not very easy for all those who regard themselves as autonomous or independent. They have to answer those nagging questions which the CP of 1968 failed to answer.3 I think that characterises the parameters of the situation which we are all in now. We are still in flux — while at the same time there are pressing political issues which need to be addressed. How are the main currents which have emerged from the crisis of the CPP answering the present theoritical and political issues?
PEDRO: In my view, the main problem with the leadership, and I mean here only the leadership of the RA faction, is that they did not return to
Maoism but became "ultra-Maoist", in a very dogmatic way. The leadership sunk itself deeper into the 1962-63 Chinese positions in the Sino-Soviet debate and into the themes of the GPCR ["Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" from 1966 on]. It will lead to many problems for the RA faction, because the membership in the former Party was not adept with these issues. There was a basic problem in theorising these conceptions and with political education in the Party. For example, at most, the widespread education programme we had was this course called Ang Kurso ng Partido, which was a mixture of excerpts, paraphrasing things from PSR [Philippine Society and Revolution],+ Stalin's DHM ['Dialectical and Historical Materialism"] political economy, and so forth. This was the most widespread course we had. But there was no discussion of the concepts which, from the late 1970s, had been developed in the regional school, the "Revolutionary School of Marxist Thought". So there is a great disparity
Now, our comrades in other opposition groups, for example the leadership of the Manila-Rizal (MR) Committee, had apparently fought it "toe-to-toe" with the RA faction. So what happened is that our comrades in the Manila-Rizal leadership sought to dig deeper into the Russian tradition in order to make polemics with Sison. So they have already produced at least three documents which explain their views, whereas we have yet to have formal discussions in our
1. Paul Petitjean, "New chapter in CPP crisis', International Viewpoint, no. 254, March 1994; Paul Petitjean, 'Crisis in Philippine Communist Party', IV, no 241, 21 December 1992; Paul Petitjean, 'New debate on Philippine left, IV, no. 211, 8 July 1991.
2. Jose Maria Sison, who now lives in exile in Holland circulated two documents while president of the CPP under the pseudonym Armando Liwanag: 'Reaffirm our basic principles and rectify errors' and 'Stand for socialism against modern revisionism'. Those party members who accept the orientation introduced in these documents are known as the "reaffirmists" (or RA), and those who reject them are called "rejectionists" (or RJ).
3. The "new" CPP (maoist) was founded in 1968 by a small number of militants who in the main came from the "old" party, which had become pro-soviet.
4. 'Philippine society and revolution, published in 1970 by Sison under the pseudonym of the first president of the CPP, Amado Guerrero, has become the principal reference for the party on the history of the Phillipines and its analysis of Philippine society and the Philippine revolution.
15
----- photo credits and running heads -----
C
International Viewpoint #262 December 1994 own current on these papers. Basically it is about what the "ism" should be in the Philippines; Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, as counterposed to what they accuse the RA faction of being — Stalinists. That would represent the second current.
### Digging deeper
The third current, which I belong to, is still in the process of digging deeper into the lessons of history and developing a better grasp of the current realities and perspectives in the situation in the Philippines and the world over. As much as possible, we would like the organic process and theory building to be more democratic and for many comrades to participate in this effort. We have already had initial workshops, although we have yet to "formalise uni-
The strong points in our theoretical workshops were as follows: 1. On the philosophical sphere we tried to go back to the question of humanism, as many comrades would say, because I believe that there has been an absence of theory building in this area. There was a brief moment after the 20th CPSU congress of philosophical revival, but there was nothing after that. 2. On the debate about the mode of production, we have had animated exchanges on this and we don't want to rush into choosing among categories such as capitalist or semicapitalist, feudal or semi-feudal. We have yet to undertake major research on the current political economy in the Philippines. In my view, there are vestiges of feudalism, but I don't believe that the country is "semi-feudal", in the way Sison explains it. I'm more into proposing that our economy is somewhat a backward commodity economy, where 16 domestic local capitalism is stunted. We are to have more debates on this in the coming weeks. 3. On strategy and tactics, unlike other opposition comrades who believe that strategy should not be used as a concept, we believe that both strategy and tactics should be employed. We are open to utilising all forms (and a combination of forms) of struggle, including armed struggle. It depends on the situation as to what combination we should utilise.
On imperialism - It was such a long time since we had any deep discussions on imperialism, so we attempted to have one. This is an area of which we have to learn more. The current character now — there is much talk about globalisation and so forth.
In my view, the world today will be largely enveloped by the current reorganisation of world capital and this will have dramatic effects on the Philippines - changing GATT to wro, the French proposals to change the IMF and World Bank into something else. points to re-organisation to adjust to the new situation.
There is much talk about the market - these "three blocs" in the world today - and we are very keen to understand the direct effects on the Philippines. But definitely, we are questioning the traditional definitions of the neo-colonial relationship of the Philippines State with US imperialism. We believe that the relationship has changed. The neo-colonial relationship of the Philippines State has developed the capacity to have its own dynamic, as shown in recent history, for example the 1983-86 upheavals. It's not always the case that US imperialism dictates what the Philippines does. This represents our second major theoretical problem on the question of the State. Many comrades have been theorising on the applicability of the civil society concept in the Philippines.
The most challenging issue for us is the question of our organisation - how we should conduct ourselves in the current situation, with due consideration to all developments. We have had debates about the vanguard, democratic centralism, all those issues... We expect that this will be the area where there will be productive debates.
### Demarcates
I am stressing these issues which others will find too theoretical because it is what demarcates us now and there will remain differences among the factions in the months and years to come. We have the question of organisational strength, but then it is a question of how to maintain our organisations, how to expand our organisations based on the most reasonable political life at certain junctures in the country. That is why I'm stressing these theoretical points, which have, sadly, been the source of crisis in the leadership of RA.
We have differences too — on our mode of conduct. We would like a change on the question of ethics. In the organisation we had what I would call a
[patronage] system, which reflects the "PO" [political officers] system - represented in particular by the suspension of elected bodies which was always justified by the war situation of the party. I feel this question of "realpolitik" in the party has been underestimated. It paved way for the "anti-infiltration campaigns" which you already know of, which cost us a great deal in terms of membership and mass base.S
Many of us are happy that the theoretical positions, questions of line, questions of organisation and ideology have
5. During the 1980s, in different parts of the country, there were campaigns aimed at exposing agents who had infiltrated the CPP. Resorting to torture in a climate of paranoia, they ended in the execution of hundreds of militants, the overwhelming majority of whom were completely innocent. In particular see the report from Walden Bello, a Filipino solidarity activist living in the US, The Philippine Communist Party at the crossroads', International Viewpoint, no. 240, 7 December 1992.
Productive debates
International Viewpoint #262 December 1994 been for the first time debated. That is a good thing. The bad thing is that there wasn't enough of a review of the organisational weaknesses of the Party: a kind of degeneration that plagued our Party. Could you elaborate on the question of ethics?
ANA: Revolutionary ethics - new ethics. In the past there was no concept of ethics. We did not discuss ethics in the Party at all. As a consequence of this almost anything could be justified for political ends. Short of certain basic principles. Even if the words were not used, there were certain ethics and values which the Party lived by, but this was not discussed as ethics. They were just simply principles and handed down as if by order or instruction. They were not closely examined in terms of their basis, their assumptions or premises. Because they were laws and instructions, they were not imbibed or absorbed as part of the ideological make-up of the people. They could be set aside, if enough political reasons were justified.
### Universality
I refer, for example, to the notion of human rights in general. We never discussed in the Party what our concept of rights was. There were discussions at the level of political activity, but in terms of ideological concepts, it was never discussed in the Party. Such that it was never clear if the Party accepted the universality of certain basic human rights for all people, or whether it was just simply whether the Party was acknowledging rights as class rights. This was part of the problem with the anti-infiltration campaign. When the Party summoned this up at its so-called tenth plenum, there was a lot of talk about the lack of mechanisms — the lack of a developed concept of due process.
What it also failed to do was look at our very basic ideological assumptions. What is our notion of the basic rights of humanity? Was it ever discussed why torture was not allowed? That was supposed to have been the policy: toture is not allowed - unles it is sanctioned by the Central Committee! So, that notion simply became an organisational and political one that could be waived by an organisational authority such as the Central Committee. Or, for example, ethics as far as relationships among people are concerned, between the leadership and Party members. Ethics covers a lot of ground, like democracy.
It seemed that anything could be subsumed for political expediency, as long as there was proper organisational authority. Could you go back to the question of "vanguardism" and unity with other political organisations?
PEDRO: I believe that there have been mistakes — not dogmatic interpretations — regarding vanguardism. It has always been said that there will only be one party mandated to be the vanguard, which carries out the only correct line, demarcating reformists from revolutionaries, revolutionaries from counter-revolutionaries. In my view the question of "vanguard" is not basicaly an organisational concept. It is an ideological, social and political concept applied in the realm of organisation, and it has everything to do with the relationship of revolutionary marxists to the working class, with the people, with other sectors of the population which have revolutionary potential. This is the main thing about the question of vanguard.
### Various parties
This does not at all preclude the existence of various parties claiming to be revolutionaries. Collectively, they can be taken as vanguards. So it depends on the situation, on the balance of forces vis-a-vis capitalism, imperialism and all reaction. These forces can co-operate, unite to various degres, or even merge, depending on the situation.
I don't believe in the dogmatic notion of the vanguard - that it should be mandated and so forth. Others would assert that it should be earnt in practice, but that is still short of the relationship of revolutionaries vis a vis the class and other sectors of the population. It is also the same with democratic centralism, in that is not simply an organisational principle but an ideological, social and political concept that should be applied at the level of the organisation. It is not a static set of principles which should be followed. It should be something organic - a dialectical fusion — because there is always change in the balance of forces, always this dynamic in the behaviour of the class formations, in the struggle within classes, changes in the character of the State, and so I think there needs to be some adjustments in the practice of democratic centralism, depending on the concrete conditions prevailing at any given point in time.
### Self-clarification
Concerning unity with other forces, with the current conditions where I think there is no revolutionary situation in the country, I have been proposing that it is not only a question of establishing a coalition for a coalition's sake, in order to fight a common enemy, but encouraging ourselves in continuing self-clarification, continuous education and encouraging other parties to do the same. There is still a lot of clarification to do within each party!
I can only hope and pray that other comrades, in other "rejectionist" groups, will shun certain concepts. We could engage in a more constructive dialogue if we shun ideological hegemony, treating other groups as competitors - instead we should create a better environment to exchange ideas in a more productive way, co-operate more on politi-
17
Productive debates variances in the demands and slogans... you have a divided left, a divided progressive movement."
Internationa/ Viewpoint #262 December 1994 cal issues, while at the same time developing ideological unity step by step. We are trying our best to open avenues for the exchange of ideas, at least minimising the maximum errors which still plague us.
Unlike other "Rejectionist" groups, those belonging to the MLCB cluster are independent from the parent party already "out". We do not recognise the Constitution of the CPP any more. Inside the MLCB, we prefer to begin to cooperate on joint political projects and at the same time be rigourous in theoretical exchanges. I am optimistic that we could form a pre-party formation provided that we can unite around the major theoretical issues. It would be wrong to unite on all the issues — only on the main issues, because otherwise there would be no struggle of ideas once we form a party.
Secondly, I believe it will come to a point where the blocs comprising the MLCB will have to dissolve in order to make a fusion firmer and stronger. There will have to be a categorical declaration about the dissolution of the blocs prior to the fusion. What are your projects?
PEDRO: Co-operation on campaigns such as value added tax, and GATT. We will be sharing resources and skills, cooperating on training and education, the temporary or permanent transfer of cadres depending on necessity. We are also working in a legal political movement which has its own set of rules — rules which must be respected if it is to develop its own integrity.
We are very open to a united front with other oppositionist or "Rejectiogroups if a fusion does not occur. This is a safety net which will include other forces, such as Bisig, or certain wings of the popular movement.
Can you assess the impact of the crisis of the CPP and the new situation on the dynamic of coalition politics and the mass movements, especially those that the National Democratic current was involved in? 6
ANA: The splits in the CPP spilled over into splits in the legal mass formations and alliances which were associated with the National Democratic movement. Because for a long time the Nat Dem movement constituted the biggest bloc on the Philippines left, the split and divisions changed the political terrain and arena as far as coalition politics are concerned. While the other political forces outside the Nat Dem movement did not interfere in the internal workings of the debate, whether in the Party or the different mass formations, they could not help but be more sympathetic to certain positions in the light of their own positions on certain questions.
The [Sison] "Reafirm" bloc did not react to this very well - and that is an under-statement. In fact the "Reafirm" bloc, as expressed through the political formations which they either controlled or were heavily present, adopted a policy of lumping together the other political blocs with the opposition [Party] groups and the legal mass formations associated with them.
For example, they would characterise the other political forces as counterrevolutionary, or assisting counter-revolutionary elements. Prior to this, in general, the Nat Dem movement maintained a sectarian attitude which was reflected in our work with these other groups. However, over the last few years there had already been changes in outlook, and consequently in relations with other groups - for the better.
Now this has been reversed. The effect of this is that they refuse to work whith groups who are working with the [Party] opposition. This has led to a situation of self-isolation. They refuse to work in coalitions and have withdrawn from, for example, the Freedom from Debt coalition.
The positive side of this was that the close relations which had developed between opposition groups in the Nat Dem movement and other political forces, became closer. We are shedding the remains of sectarianism which we had been carrying for so long.
If we look at the effect on the movement as a whole, the CPP split has led to temporary weakening of the progressive movement, because instead of having a strong united movement, you have a situation where the various elements of the movement are not united in responding to, or acting on, the challenges of the situation.
### Divided
So, concretely, you have big campaigns but two or three separate mobilisations with variances in the demands and slogans; you have a situation where, instead of acting together effectively against the policies of the government, you have a divided left, a divided progressive movement. This is the negative effect of the CPP split in relation to the strength of the government.
My own view is that this is only negative in the short-term. In the longterm, if the split was necessary so that those elements and groups in the progressive movement, and the revolutionary movement, can be more relevant, and can redefine themselves in the light of changes both nationally and internationally, then we can be positive. We have to go through this initially painful, weakening process. I think there is a basis for my optimism because, while there is a lot of rethinking and some confusion,
"...you have big campaigns but two or three separate mobilisations with
18 on the whole all the progressive groups are exhibiting a greater determination to pursue basic changes in our society.
6. The National Democratic movement (Nat Dem or ND) has both a legal and an underground element. It comprises organisations led by, or which support, the orientation of the CPP.
International Viewpoint #262 December 1994
Sure, it is a little disorientating at the moment, but I am optimistic that all of these groups will get their act together. I am pessimistic about the "Reafirm" bloc and their ability to change. Indeed, they have not only refused to change, but they are going back to ideas from an earlier era, many of which have already been proven to be ineffective and wrong.
So in general, the split in the Nat Dem movement has led to a re-alignment of the left. Could you elaborate on the challenges of the new national and international situation?
ANA: I see a new situation, created by the regime and by the development in the ruling elite as a whole. What we are facing is a more consolidated elite, compared to the years of transition in the Aquino period when the ruling class was characterised not only by many factions but also immense conflict between the factions. This leads to a more difficult situation as far as the left and the progressive movement is concerned. Of course the regime is also in deep crisis, but it still in better position than the Aquino government. What is more interesting is that the division of the left, largely due to its own weaknesses, gives Ramos even greater space to deal with the problems, political as well as economic.
### Sophisticated
There is not just a consolidation of a new ruling elite, but also a consolidation of the new form of rule which is more sophisticated, more difficult to deal with than the dictatorial rule which we faced for many years under Marcos. It requires a lot more sophistication on our part, flexibility in terms of tactics, skill in maximising all the possibilities which are presented to the left in various arenas, and we have not adjusted yet inspite of the fact that the Marcos dictatorship collapsed more than eight years ago. We lost a lot of time in the beginning, telling ourselves that changes in the political situation were not very important, that fundamentally nothing had changed.
As far as the international situation is concerned, we used to have this tendency to be inward looking. For example, we would only analyse economic changes within the framework of the Philippines, and the relationship of the US to the Philippines - only looking at imperialism as US imperialism. We are now trying to move away from this fixed way of seeing the world. It is very important for us to understand what happened to the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc. We rejected the cut and dry analysis of the "Reafirm" bloc, presented through their document Stand Against Modern Revisionism' — we rejected the premisses on which it was
However, I can't as yet speak of any clear framework or conclusions on the international situation. I would say that we are in a very important period of learning, simply trying to grapple with the problems and trying to understand. For many of us, this is not something we used to do before. In the past, in the Party, there were some people trying to do that but it would just be fed to the general membership of the Party, if it became relevant to their work, otherwise it was only those who were specifically involved in international work who talked about these things. The rest of us simply focused on national and domestic questions. In the opposition there is now a lot of enthusiasm for opening up to the many ideas in the international left, and to study the many complex changes which have occurred.
### Balance
PEDRO: What we failed to see in the past is this dialectical balance between the struggles in the third world, the capitalist countries, and the socialist countries; if one is weak the other two could
Because we are in a third world setting I am very glad that many progressive and revolutionary groups in capitalist countries have taken up struggles. The effects of clashes in the realm of the market and zones of influence, of drastic changes in the productive forces, are felt in the capitalist countries too, such that there can be a closer solidarity not only between the third world and the former socialist countries, but also involving the capitalist countries. It has to be a twoway street, not only from the capitalist countries to the Philippines. I hope we will find new mecanisms to develop such relationships. in order to strike a very good balance between these various revolutionary sectors in the world.
There has been this persistent danger of dogmatism — this question of "ism" From our point of view we want to learn as much as possible from the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Nicaraguan revolution - even from the failures, the degeneration of parties in many socialist countries. It is not a question of finding certain principles and making them into "isms".
'. There is a lot of self-clarification needed. But then the danger of being transformed into a debating club is very real. Our attitude is that we try to combine theoretical work with political practice.
What we would like at the moment is to develop and sustain co-operative relations with as many anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist forces the world over.
That is all we can afford at the present time. *
From the
International Institute for
Research and Education
Notebooks for
Study and Research
No. 22, 'Women's Lives in the
New Global Economy'
Eds. Penny Duggan & Heather
Dashner
• A new anthology by women writing from their personal and activist expenence.
Published as part of the NSR's
"dossier" series, it explores how capitalist re-organisation of the globa economy is protoundly affecting women's lives in every corner of the world
• Includes articles on Belgium,
Sweden, Turkey, South Africa, India,
Malaysia, Mexico, and the US
- with an introduction on women and economic integration.
• Women's Lives in the New Global
Economy demonstrates that feminist and labour struggles can re-assert women's right to decide their future.
Available for £3.50, US$5.25, 30FF from NSR, Postbus 53290, 1007 RG
Amsterdam, Holland.
Please make cheques payable to
P Rousset. Postal giros to CCP Paris
11 541 97 T
No Eurocheques please
19