philippines revolution

[ReD_ReBeL]

i found a really good site about it..Phillipines revolution website (http://www.philippinerevolution.org/), also disscuss anything about the revolution in here, i do not know much about it, but im going to read up on it. Just thought like giving u the link if you folks where interested

[Red Heretic]

The CPP(Maoist) and the Phillipine revolution rock. Cool site comrade.

[romanm]

What is the CPP (Maoist)? There is a Maoist party called the CP Philippines.

In any case, here is an excellent document from the CP Philippines on hegemonism and cominterns. Mao: Seek not hegemony.

Contribution to the 14th International Communist Seminar "Internationalist Experiences and Tasks of Communists in the Struggle against Imperialism".
Brussels, 2-4 May 2005


Our current international work and internationalist tasks

[We the undersigned signatories would like to
endorse the following conception of relations among organizations studying Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao internationally. We note also that the Central Committee of another party conducting People's War has condemned organizational attempts at "hegemonism." The kind of issues that the CPP is talking about that came up in Filipino history are common internationally. We must do our homework on our own conditions and before we can contribute to the international communist movement.]


Communist Party of the Philippines

By the International Department
Central Committee

[cut . . .]

Sense of History

We Filipino communists have an acute sense of history. We are always conscious of the need to draw principles, lessons and inspiration from revolutionary theory and practice as developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and other revolutionary thinkers and leaders and by the great revolutionary masses of the proletariat and semiproletariat.

On the basis of the revolutionary experience of the Filipino people and the Philippine trade union movement, Crisanto Evangelista and other comrades founded the CPP for the first time in 1930. They were inspired by the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Third International. But they had no explicit directive from the Third International for the founding even as American and Chinese cadres of the Third International had since the 1920s encouraged and facilitated the participation of worker and peasant delegates in conferences in Moscow, Canton and Shanghai.

Under the guidance of the antifascist Popular Front policy of the Third International, cadres of the Communist Party of the USA made representations to the US-Commonwealth government of Quezon in 1936-37 for the release of communist leaders from prison and exile. They also advised the merger of the Communist and Socialist parties in 1938 that combined their respective worker and peasant mass followings.

The Right opportunist influence of Earl Browder penetrated the CPP not because of the Third International but because of the influence of the CPUSA on the CSMP general secretary Dr. Vicente Lava, who was a former CPUSA member. The Browderite line of “peace and democracy” undermined the revolutionary resolve of the Communist-Socialist Merger Party (CSMP) after the dissolution of the Third International in 1943.

The CSMP had a limited knowledge of the struggle against Titoite revisionism in the Communist Information Bureau from 1948 onwards. Then, it was preoccupied with domestic issues, the growing attacks on the revolutionary forces and people and eventually the outbreak of civil war. The second Lava brother to become general secretary, Jose Lava, sought to carry the “Left” opportunist line of quick military victory in two years’ time, without painstaking mass work and solid mass organizing. Within the same two years, from 1950 to 1952, this line resulted in the destruction of the main units of the people’s army based in camps in the unpopulated Sierra Madre.

The third Lava brother to become the general secretary, Dr. Jesus Lava, adopted a Right opportunist line under the weight of defeat and pessimism. Subsequently, he increasingly came under the influence of Khruschovite revisionism. The CSMP continuously weakened as a result of the 1955 policy seeking to liquidate the people’s army and the 1957 single-file policy seeking to liquidate the CSMP. Before 1960, the CSMP was practically dead, with the general secretary merely hiding himself in Manila and with no party branch and revolutionary mass movement left.

Dr. Jesus Lava took interest in forming an “executive committee” to revive the CSMP in 1962 only after becoming encouraged by a student demonstration of 5000 students that literally broke up the 1961 anticommunist congressional hearings against “subversive” writings in university publications in 1961. He invited Comrade Amado Guerrero to represent the youth in the committee in 1962, after he came from a few months of open language study and clandestine revolutionary studies in Indonesia.

The young proletarian revolutionary cadres led by Comrade Amado Guerrero had studied Marxism-Leninism independently of the CSMP. They studied Philippine history and current circumstances and the secretly available writings of Filipino communists since Crisanto Evangelista. They gained access to Marxist-Leninist literature and to the Soviet and Chinese literature through Indonesia. They studied the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and Moscow Statement of 1960 and the developing ideological debate and other contradictions between the CPSU and the Communist Party of China (CPC).

In 1967, the contradictions between the proletarian revolutionaries and the Lava revisionist clique came to a head principally over questions of Party history and strategy and tactics and secondarily over questions in the Sino-Soviet ideological debate. The proletarian revolutionaries had gained the majority of young and senior Party cadres and members.
They published their Marxist-Leninist position in Beijing Review on May 1, 1967. The Lava faction published their revisionist position in the Prague-based pro-Soviet Information Bulletin.

Comrade Amado Guerrero and other proletarian revolutionaries reestablished the CPP under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought in 1968. The congress of reestablishment was grounded on a thoroughgoing critique of the ideological, political and organizational errors of the Lava brothers from 1942 onwards and the phenomenon of modern revisionism centred in the CPSU. Our Party declared its adherence to the principle of proletarian internationalism and regarded its revolutionary struggle and victories as contribution to the world anti-imperialist struggle and the world proletarian revolution.

We criticized and repudiated the revisionist notion that the proletariat had already accomplished its historic mission in the Soviet Union. We denounced as bourgeois populism the Kruschovite ideas of “party of the whole people” and “state of the whole people” and as bourgeois pacifism and reformism the slogans of “peaceful transition”, “peaceful economic competition” and “peaceful coexistence” (harped on as the general line as opposed to proletarian internationalism in international relations).

[cut . . .]Current International Situation and Work

To understand fully how the world anti-imperialist and socialist movements have suffered serious setbacks and have come to a period of temporary defeat, we have to study how monopoly capitalism, modern revisionism and neocolonialism have coincided to unleash oppression and exploitation on the proletariat and people.

The US-led imperialist ideological, political, economic, military and cultural offensives against the proletariat and the people, the rapidly worsening crisis conditions of the world capitalist system and the rapacity of neoliberal globalization, the escalation of imperialist war production, the spread of state terrorism and wars of aggression drive us to fight US imperialism, its allies and puppets.

But to bring about long lasting revolutionary confidence and steady and ever growing anti-imperialist and socialist movements, we need communist and workers’ parties capable not only of waging the struggle against imperialism and reaction for democracy and socialism but also of addressing the question of combating modern revisionism and preempting it or preventing it from rising again to undermine and destroy socialism.

[cut . . .]

Meetings with other parties are occasions for learning from other parties rather than teaching them what to think and what to do. Communist and workers’ parties can go into bilateral and multilateral meetings in order to exchange experiences, views and ideas, engage in theoretical discussions and agree on various forms of cooperation.

Bilateral meetings have advantages over multilateral meetings amidst the current wide divergences in the ideological and political positions among communist and workers’ parties. Bilateral meetings can be held more often or on a timely basis and can devote more time to in-depth discussions and study. It is easier to make inquiries, give opinions and suggestions and to arrive at a common understanding and common positions through bilateral meetings than through multilateral meetings where normally the parties are expected to present previously established and polished positions.

In bilateral meetings, it is easier not only to arrive at agreements on ideological and political position and on practical cooperation but also to define the specific responsibilities and tasks in various forms of cooperation. It takes more time and effort to organize multilateral meetings. When these are held, the parties are constrained by time and can only arrive at a general level of understanding and general lines of cooperation. There can only one or a few resolutions that can be thoroughly deliberated and subjected to consensus.

Multilateral meetings can be fruitful only when they are preceded by a series of bilateral meetings, they present occasions for bilateral meetings and they result in the establishment of bilateral relations to deepen common understanding and cooperation.

[cut . . . ]

Principles Governing the Relations of Parties

The established principles that govern the relations of communist and workers’ parties are those of proletarian internationalism, equality and independence, mutual respect, non-interference, and mutual support and cooperation for mutual benefit. Even before its dissolution in 1943, the Third International had ruled that the Executive Committee should desist from interfering in the organizational details of any party and in local issues about which the party in a country knows better than any foreign party.

At its dissolution, the Third International declared the impossibility of coordinating the national sections under world war conditions and the political maturity and independent capabilities already achieved by the parties in dealing with the complexities of their respective national conditions. After World War II, upon the rise of several ruling communist and workers’ parties and many other parties, the principles of equality, independence and non-interference came to be ever more asserted, especially in the Moscow Declaration of 1957.

The independence that Tito of Yugoslavia asserted was unacceptable because it was based on bourgeois nationalism and was a mantle for a whole range of revisionist ideas and policies opposing land reform and centralized socialist planning. The vigorous efforts of the CPSU to maintain itself as the “leading centre” of the international communist movement through multilateral meetings stopped neither the revisionist degeneration of the CPSU nor the assertion of independence by the CPC and other Asian parties and their prevailing preference for bilateral rather than multilateral meetings. The CPC and other parties were concerned about the CPSU using multilateral meetings to impose its will on other parties and using the majority vote rather than consensus.

We must learn from the past. If we wish to develop systematic, periodic or regularized multilateral meetings of communist and workers’ parties, we must adhere to the aforementioned principles governing the relations of parties. In considering and agreeing on resolutions, we must apply the methods of democratic deliberation and consensus. Thus, due respect is accorded to the equality and independence of the parties. Party delegations are given ample opportunity to further consult their principals and sign the resolution with or without qualifications or reservations.

To enhance the life and effectiveness of any system of multilateral meetings, agreements must be made only on those issues or points where such agreements can be reached through consensus. Disagreements should be laid aside to maintain the level of unity, common understanding and practical cooperation possible. Such disagreements may be resolved in the future either by a rising level of common understanding or upon a change in the situation or both.

It would be impossible to maintain the system of multilateral meetings if a single party or a few parties presume to be the leading centre or acquire by election or appointment the power to lead the other parties. The principle of democratic centralism does not apply among equal and independent parties. The methods of persuasive discussion and consensus are available to them for reaching agreement on issues and courses of action.

In the last more than fifteen years, our Party has participated in a number of multilateral meetings of communist and workers’ parties, which include the Brussels International Communist Seminar, the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations, the Calcutta International Seminar on the Continuing Validity of Marxism, the International Seminar on People’s War and the Kathmandu International Seminar on Socialism. It has also contributed papers to other multilateral meetings in Moscow, Quito and elsewhere, which it could not attend because of lack of funds.

The CPP is willing to participate in any multilateral meeting in which the aforementioned governing principles on the relations of parties are followed and resolutions are processed sufficiently through democratic deliberation and consensus. The multilateral meetings may vary according to the ideological range or focus of the participants, such as Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Mao Zedong Thought or Maoist or scientific socialist, according to the topics, such as people’s war, defense of socialism or neoliberal globalization or whatever aspect of imperialism or according to territorial scope, such as international, Asia or Southeast Asia.

Our Party recognizes that the variety of multilateral meetings of communist and workers’ parties is due to differences in ideology, politics, topical interest or territorial scope. We are optimistic that from such variety and differences of multilateral meetings, from rising levels of common understanding and practical cooperation against the common enemy and, most importantly, from the forthcoming revolutionary victories shall arise parties that would have the capability of convening all or most of the communist and workers’ parties of the world because of the respect, experience and authority that they have gained.

Communist and workers’ parties must create and lead through party fractions or groups mass organizations of various types (unions and cooperatives for workers, associations of peasants, women, youth, journalists, lawyers, health professionals, scientists, engineers, cultural workers, peace activists and so on). They can link themselves effectively to the millions of people only through such mass organizations and their sectoral and multisectoral alliances.

Since the disappearance or diminution of mass organizations based in the Soviet bloc countries, like the World Federation of Trade Unions, World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Union of Students, Women’s International Democratic Federation, International Organization of Journalists, World Peace Council and the like, the so-called nongovernmental organizations funded by imperialist governments, UN agencies and private foundations or charities of the monopoly capitalists, bourgeois parties and religious institutions have increasingly taken the initiative in holding international multilateral meetings in order to push the reformist slogan of “civil society” among mass organizations.

The communist and workers’ parties should encourage the mass organizations to form their respective national and international organizations, and hold meetings to carry forward the line of anti-imperialist solidarity, prevail over reformism and build the international united front. While progressive or revolutionary forces of the people take the lead and initiative, they should avoid the pitfalls of sectarianism and try to build and broaden the united front at every turn.

Our Party holds the view that the communist and workers’ parties should not be among the participants in international formations of mass organizations or people’s organizations for several reasons. The participation of parties is likely to arouse ideological debates on top of the democratic dialogue over social and political issues and to turn off mass organizations that belong or do not belong to other parties. Parties that are legal would also have an advantage over parties that are necessarily clandestine and illegal.

[cut. . .]

Conclusion: Evaluation

It will take time to build the ideological, political and organizational unity at a level comparable to that in the 1930s or that in 1950s. Let us remember that the 1960 Moscow meeting of 81 communist and workers’ parties was precisely the prelude to great divisions in the international communist movement. There is no golden era to hold up as an ideal and to which we can return so easily by simply holding multilateral meetings.

We need to recognize how much destruction modern revisionism and reformism have wrought in stages over a long period on the great cause and achievements of socialism. These involved the undermining and breaching of socialism, misrepresentation of revisionists as communists and capitalist restoration as socialist reforms, and finally the uncamouflaged full-scale capitalist restoration in the years of 1989 to 1991.

In the present period, bilateral and multilateral meetings among communist and workers’ parties are feasible and must be held to raise the level of common understanding about the history and current circumstances of the international communist movement, analyze the current situation and agree on what the communist and workers’ parties can do individually and collectively for the resurgence of the revolutionary mass movement of the proletariat and the people against imperialism and for socialism.

Through such meetings, we can raise the level of common ideological and political understanding and through successes in the revolutionary struggles against imperialism and for socialism we can build the basis for overriding the current differences among the communist and workers’ parties. The important thing now is for all of us to follow the principles of proletarian internationalism, equality, independence, noninterference, mutual support and cooperation in the relations of communist and workers’ parties.

[cut . . .]

With experience, strength and ideas drawn from revolutionary struggles in our respective countries, we as communist and workers’ parties have much to share when we meet among ourselves, such as we do now in this seminar. We can exchange experiences and analyses, raise the level of common understanding in ideology and strategy and agree on the coordination of struggles and on the various forms of cooperation. With successes in doing so, we move steadily towards a unity of unprecedented significance, effectiveness and proportions.

[Commie Rat]

So what.

What happens if they succede?

The Phillipines turn into a maoist society, think china in the Great Leap Forward but on a much smaller scale or their econmy collapses. Although Phillipines is one of the New Asian Tigers huge public debt and reliance on western outsourcing of manufacting work mean -if- the maoist succed the country's poor working class will lose the miniscule amount of wage they might be getting out of a 39 billion dollar a year export industry. Do you think that it's two major export partners ( Japan[20.1%] and America [18.2%] ) are going to want anything to do with it if it takes on the monkier of Communism? Do you think the babyboomers of China are going to what to support the Phillipines? The truth of the matter is that phillipines does not have anough resources to support its population on it's own? The phillipines imports over 38 billion dollars of goods a year (another 18% of which are from America), it cannot just magic these resourses up out of thin air?
I think not.

If they Fail?

Another notch on the belt of Capitalism

yay im loving this situation

[Hiero]

yay im loving this situation
Your actually loving imperialism, basically you just said "The people of the philippines should not fight US imperialism, they should be gratefull for what it brings."

[celticfire]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 18 2005, 09:26 AM
So what.

What happens if they succede?

The Phillipines turn into a maoist society, think china in the Great Leap Forward but on a much smaller scale or their econmy collapses. Although Phillipines is one of the New Asian Tigers huge public debt and reliance on western outsourcing of manufacting work mean -if- the maoist succed the country's poor working class will lose the miniscule amount of wage they might be getting out of a 39 billion dollar a year export industry. Do you think that it's two major export partners ( Japan[20.1%] and America [18.2%] ) are going to want anything to do with it if it takes on the monkier of Communism? Do you think the babyboomers of China are going to what to support the Phillipines? The truth of the matter is that phillipines does not have anough resources to support its population on it's own? The phillipines imports over 38 billion dollars of goods a year (another 18% of which are from America), it cannot just magic these resourses up out of thin air?
I think not.

If they Fail?

Another notch on the belt of Capitalism

yay im loving this situation
This is a common argument from intellectual revolutionaries going all the way back to Trotsky. A backwards country with limited resources can not achieve revolution without an advances countries help, so why bother?

This is a bad line that basically tells people, "why try to make revolution? You won't succeed anyway."

For all the problems and shortcomings of the Great Leap Forward, it was exactly what China needed.

China's industrial economy under Mao grew impressively--at an average rate of 10 percent per year, even during the Cultural Revolution.

China, the former "sick man of Asia," transformed itself into a major industrial power in the quarter century between 1949 and 1976--a rate of development comparable only to the greatest surges of growth in history. And it achieved this without relying on exploitation or foreign assistance, and in the face of a hostile international environment.

Agriculture grew by some 3 percent a year, slightly exceeding population growth. By 1970, the problem of adequately feeding China's population had been solved. This was accomplished through integrated economic planning, a system of collective agriculture that promoted grass-roots mobilization, flood control, steady investment in rural infrastructure, and the equitable distribution of food to peasants and rationing of essential foods so that all people were guaranteed their minimal requirements.

In 1949 only 65,000 acres of land were irrigated; by 1974, over 100 million acres were irrigated--giving China the world's largest area under irrigation. Water conservancy, flood control, and anti-erosion projects changed the landscape of China's countryside. Massive reforestation efforts created significant areas of new forest in China.

By the mid-1970s, basic farm machinery was being manufactured and repaired in most rural localities. Over 70 percent of China's rice paddies and wheat fields were sown with high-yielding seed varieties.

Between 1960 and 1975, China's grain production increased at an annual average rate of between 3.2 and 4 percent, well above population growth. Time magazine acknowledged in 1976 that the problem of adequately feeding China's population "had been solved."

This was a radical break with China's past in which floods, droughts, and feudal oppression caused routine mass starvation--a condition common today in many Third World countries. And keep in mind that the amount of arable (farmable) land in China is only 70 percent of that in the U.S.-- but had to provide for four times as many people.

So China was definitely a model for the "third-world" to make a succesful revolutionary economy. Even with failures like the backyard steel furnaces, the Leap was overwhelmingly succesful.

I don't see how anyone wanting to END class divisions can NOT support movements like in Nepal or the Philippines; even if you disgree with the ideology of that movement.

[Commie Rat]

For all the problems and shortcomings of the Great Leap Forward, it was exactly what China needed

At a terrible cost that is one of the biggest arguments against communism


In 1949 only 65,000 acres of land were irrigated; by 1974, over 100 million acres were irrigated--giving China the world's largest area under irrigation. Water conservancy, flood control, and anti-erosion projects changed the landscape of China's countryside. Massive reforestation efforts created significant areas of new forest in China.

By the mid-1970s, basic farm machinery was being manufactured and repaired in most rural localities. Over 70 percent of China's rice paddies and wheat fields were sown with high-yielding seed varieties.

Between 1960 and 1975, China's grain production increased at an annual average rate of between 3.2 and 4 percent, well above population growth. Time magazine acknowledged in 1976 that the problem of adequately feeding China's population "had been solved."


You see the problem here is that China is a huge country (9,326,410 sq km) of which 16.65% is arable, on the other hand you have the Phillipines with only 298,170 sq km of land in total with only 18% arable. China had huge tracts of land to deal with whilst the Phillipines only has a tiny amount to work with. (Must also take into consideration that Chinas farmland would be more closly grouped together due to the nature of the land, whilst the Phillipines would be split up across the islands)

Put simple you must to fall into the trap of thinking just becuase it worked for one country doesn not mean it will work for another, you must take the individual circumstanes of each country.


QUOTE
yay im loving this situation


Your actually loving imperialism, basically you just said "The people of the philippines should not fight US imperialism, they should be gratefull for what it brings."

Bah, dont take my words out of context, it is a catch 22 - either their econmy fails and they all starve and die (not to mention the years of civil war it may bring) under the maoists or they get fucked but cappie scum - either way they are screwed unless they take the road to communism ( and no Maoism will not bring this)

[Hiero]

Put simple you must to fall into the trap of thinking just becuase it worked for one country doesn not mean it will work for another, you must take the individual circumstanes of each country.

First you put the Great Leap Forward as something bad and it is the reason not for the Maoist to overthrow the imperialists and the bourgeoisie. Now you say it worked, but that is not a reason for undertaking a similair policy.

If we actually look at the individual circumstances we see the the Philipines is not China during 1950's, it is more advance and has more to work with. China had to build from virtually nothing. Also the Phillipines can learn from China's mistakes.


either way they are screwed unless they take the road to communism ( and no Maoism will not bring this)

Can you be a bit more precise as to how a 3rd world nation does this. The only attempts that have brought great acheivements have been the Maoist model. You just say "take the road to communism" because you don't understand what that requires and the problems that need to be overcome. You just think it is that simple that one can just correct communism and the only thing stoping this is the Maoists. This is a pathetic attempt to sit on the fence and have a half baked opinion.

[Commie Rat]

Can you be a bit more precise as to how a 3rd world nation does this. The only attempts that have brought great acheivements have been the Maoist model. You just say "take the road to communism" because you don't understand what that requires and the problems that need to be overcome. You just think it is that simple that one can just correct communism and the only thing stoping this is the Maoists. This is a pathetic attempt to sit on the fence and have a half baked opinion.

Exellent,

We have reduced down to petty name calling already.

The sad thing is i expected this.

Really is it not better to have a 'half-baked' opinion that is your own rather to declare the line of the party as the absolute word of god?

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:34 PM
What is the CPP (Maoist)? There is a Maoist party called the CP Philippines.
That is what I meant....

[Commie Rat]

Well, i wont be posting for a week, which doesn't mean im piking just put your arguments up and i will shoot them down when i get back

[Commie Rat]

or you can just be *****es

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Commie Rat
The Philippines turn into a Maoist society, think China in the Great Leap Forward but on a much smaller scale or their economy collapses.

I see no reason why the Philippine economy should "collapse" under Maoist rule. The "Great Leap Forward" was a Great Fuckup but overall China did develop into a modern industrialized country under the Maoists.

Indeed, it's much more likely that the present-day Philippine economy -- dominated by American and increasingly Japanese imperialists -- will continue to stagnate and not really develop at all.

To be sure, one should completely disregard all the "socialist rhetoric"...all that stuff has the same truth content as what the revolutionary bourgeoisie told us 200 years ago about "liberty, equality, fraternity".

The Philippine Maoists will impose a despotism and call it "socialism". And what will come out "on the other end" is modern capitalism.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that for "western" revolutionaries, the "third world" struggles against imperialism -- especially U.S. imperialism -- are worthy of our support...simply because they weaken the Empire.

Anything that weakens the American Empire helps us!

What we have to avoid are illusions about the nature of those third-world struggles -- that they are somehow "socialist" or "communist" and will create societies that we would want to live in.

No.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif