Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa–Pilipinas
Written by: Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa–Pilipinas;
Published: 2001
Source: Text retrieved from RPM-P Angelfire Blog;
Markup: Simoun Magsalin;
Copyright: No specific copyrights. Provided freely by the Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa–Pilipinas.
Note: These are documeents collected from the RPM-P website hosted at Angelfire. These were not collectively entitled as “position papers” in the original website.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
On the Revolutionary Mass Movement
On the Organs of Political Power
On Electoral and Parliamentary Struggle
The Philippines has an uneven capitalist development under big foreign monopoly capital control.
Developments of the world capitalist system have brought about an uneven capitalist development in the country. The most advanced capitalist forms coexist with pre-capitalist and other earlier forms, with the latter subordinated to the former.
Historical impingement of imperialist interests on the country and the continued domination of big foreign monopoly capitalists have subordinated the local economy to the interests of monopoly capitalists. The extraction of foreign monopoly super-profits from the country and the subservience of the local ruling class to these foreign interests have resulted in the slow and highly maldeveloped state of capitalism in the country.
Developed but different from the particular conditions of a backward colonial and/or semi-colonial country, Philippine society is basically a capitalist country. Capitalism already dominates and permeates the whole social life of Philippine society. Remnants of old relations of production, that include even some earlier Asiatic forms among the Moro and Lumad peoples, are secondary and only serve to facilitate the basic interest of capital to extract profit.
This process of maldevelopment is being worsened by the neo-imperialist onslaught of globalization promoted by the country's bourgeois government policies. Under the dictates of the World Bank and IMF structural adjustment program and its commitments in the GATT-WTO-APEC agreements, the government ensures the implementation of globalization through the Philippines 2000 government program.
Globalization is nothing but the specific feature of imperialism as it grapples with the present crisis of the world capitalist system. The crisis inevitably develop from the contradiction between the socialized production and capitalist ownership of the means of production of capitalism. The continued accumulation and higher concentration of social wealth in the hands of a smaller number of big monopoly capitalists has the corresponding degree of deterioration of the standard of living of millions of working masses brought about by the intensified exploitation of monopoly capital on the other hand.
It seeks to solve this crisis of the system by breaking through the protective barriers of nation states of less developed countries from the harsh competition and exploitation of big foreign monopoly capital. This takes the form of trade liberalization, privatization of lucrative fields of investments in social services and financial deregulation.
Finance-capital remain the biggest controlling interest of foreign monopoly capital and maintains powerful control over the country's economy. This control of big foreign finance capital interest is tightened further by the liberalized banking and capital flow that paved the way for the rapid increase of portfolio investments in the country. Foreign-debt that is a major source of public spending also tie down the country to the dictates of the IMF-WB.
Intensified foreign competition due to trade and investment liberalization pushed by the local bourgeois government is resulting into continuing bankruptcies of small local capital that aggravates the problem of absence of heavy industries and limited manufacturing sectors.
The latest technological advancements are more commercial and tourist oriented and there is the corresponding rise of the new bourgeois elite who act as adjuncts of big foreign monopoly capital in siphoning surplus through the marketing of foreign consumer goods/services and financing.
Big foreign monopoly capitalist interest dominate the orientation of agricultural production through its control on the market of the country's main agricultural products, marketing of agricultural inputs for local farming heavily dependent on these products and in the large-scale cash crops and agriculture-based raw material production with high productivity.
These interests also control most of the existing enterprises in the extractive industries through direct ownership or loans provided to the government. These are continuously contributing to capitalistic techonological advancements in the rural areas and corresponding changes in land ownership patterns and the rapid disintegration of self-sufficient peasant economy of nationality minority peoples.
Capitalistic social transformation in agriculture has been mainly junker-led. Large tracts of agricultural land continue to be controlled and owned by big landed families who gained from the penetration of monopoly capitalist interests in agriculture by going into the profitable endeavors of cash crops production and/or trading and other agri-business. This can be seen in the large-scale although technologically backward agricultural production of export crops of sugar and coconut, in other commercial vegetable production and in the monopolistic trading and marketing of rice grains and selling of agricultural inputs.
The government's Philippines 2000 program promotes the recent trend among junker capitalists for land conversion through its component of setting-up agro-industrial centers that encourage the entry of foreign investments. This favors their interest to get the highest returns from their land through real estate, tourist and industrial use of their large tracts of land.
The bias of the government for big landowners notwithstanding its land reform program have also made possible the continuous control by big landowners of large rice farms.
A small number of small capitalist entrepreneur farmers have thrived in the production and trading of rice, fruit and vegetable crops for the local market and in contract-growing for big foreign corporations in corn, banana and pineapple. A few land reform beneficiaries were able to accumulate capital to sustain and expand their entrepreneurial interests by hiring labor, earning profit from local trading of agricultural produce and engaging in usury to poor farmers.
The erosion of the feudal self-sufficient economy has developed to the extent of the disappearance of small-scale self-sufficient peasant production as a viable means of subsistence. There are widespread and continuous bankruptcies of small-scale peasant production.
Small tiller-producers could not cope with the cost of production necessary to ensure productivity, oftentimes becoming bankrupt victims of usurers/creditors. Even most land reform beneficiaries ultimately relinquish their rights over their land due to their incapacity to sustain production in the setting of a highly commercialized crops production. This is further aggravated by government deregulation that drastically reduced government-support on irrigation facilities and cheap inputs and opened the local market to cheaper imported agricultural produce.
Although communal production for food self-sufficiency still exist among tribal and Moro peoples, this has been subordinated to the capitalist orientation of production for the market which takes the form of the shifting of a bigger portion of their farming for cash or for the market.
Uneven capitalist maldevelopment has made the problem of poverty, unemployment and inflation chronic in the country. Globalization is further intensifying exploitation, worsening unemployment and pushing the pauperization of millions of laboring masses. The worst situation is in the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, such as the Philippines and extends to the second world of Europe without sparing the masses of workers in the countries of the first world.
Millions of masses of wage and low-salary earners are at the mercy of capital with their labor-power being pegged to the lowest as the supply of labor continues to balloon from the continuing displacement in agriculture and from business bankruptcies while opportunities for employment go the opposite way of contraction. The standard of living continues to worsen with the working masses wallowing in misery and poverty in contrast to the social wealth and technological progress developed by the advancements of capitalist society.
The thrust of the government to develop the country's international competitiveness through labor-only-contracting has meant loss of jobs, lower wages, absence of security of tenure, absence of social benefits and as capitalists take advantage of this state policy (rise in underemployment rate from 8.70% in 1995 to 10.90% in 1996).
Thousands of workers have been laid-off, many without separation pay. Most of them were employed by the numerous manufacturing and commercial establishments that went bankrupt and/or were forced to reduce production from the impact of globalization. (Statistics have placed the number of laid-off workers on the first quarter of this year at a figure of 40,000, already way beyond 50% of the 65,000 laid off for the whole year of 1995).
The majority of the employed are in the service sector with low salary and wages. Many of them do not have security of tenure and social benefits. They are in the transportation, food and hotel establishments, communication, health and education sectors.
The rapid disintegration of the peasantry has reached the level of the proletarianization of the majority of this class. The new class of landless rural poor who either cannot get land to cultivate (by ownership, tenancy or occupation) or whose small piece of land cannot produce enough for their needs, and cannot get any regular work as a farm hand comprise the great majority of the rural population. Their means of surviving takes the form of combining off-farm and on-farm work whenever and wherever they can sell their labor at a much lesser amount for more work.
Although there has been a continuous decrease in employment in agriculture, there has been no corresponding increase of employment in the other sectors, such as manufacturing and services. Instead, there is a noted increase in the number of families whose income come from others outside of agriculture, fishing, service, manufacturing, or industry.
Migration from the rural areas to the urban centers has been increasing for decades in the search of the pauperized land tillers for odd jobs in the urban centers to survive. They continue to swell the number of the semi-proletariat urban poor.
The phenomenon on the rise in the number and contribution as the number one dollar-earner of the country's income of overseas workers has emerged due to the extreme problem of unemployment in the country. Most of these migrant workers are laid-off workers, bankrupt farmers from the rural areas and even low-salaried professionals who manage to borrow or raise the amount necessary to pay for any available overseas employment. They are hired by capitalists of other countries chiefly because their labor is much cheaper and, most of the time, without the conditions for social benefits.
Only the conscious and organized action of the working class can change the exploitative and oppressive rule of foreign monopoly capital and adjunct local capitalists, including the junker capitalists and bring about their liberation from the rule of capital.
This social revolution by the masses of the proletariat and semi-proletariat will seek to change capitalist ownership of the means and the orientation of production towards establishing a socialist society that will bring about genuine social progress and justice and give dignity to mankind.
The revolutionary struggle in the country will seek to establish socialized utilization of all wealth created in society. Together with this, production will be geared towards the rational use of all natural and existing resources for the total welfare of the laboring masses and the well-being of the future generations of mankind.
Given the condition that international monopoly capital has powerful control and dictates over the local state and economy, the unified action of the working class worldwide both in the advanced and dominated countries such as the Philippines is absolutely necessary to ensure the victory of socialism.
The socialist revolution in the country will have to be a part of the world proletarian revolution towards socialism. The particular conditions and aims of struggle of other countries will be respected as the basis for the effective advance of the working class movement in each country. On this basis, the solidarity of all the masses of the working class in the whole world will be strengthened.
At the same time, this should avoid the experience of the anti-worker nature of bureaucratic states of the failed models of socialist countries. Workers democracy will be promoted as the real basis for a socialist society to develop fully.
The struggle against capitalism and the building of socialism can only succeed by overthrowing capitalist rule and dismantling the bourgeois state power as the principal instrument of the bourgeoisie in maintaining the capitalist order.
This political struggle of the proletariat must be led and organized by its vanguard detachment and political party. Armed with the revolutionary theory on advancing the class struggle of the working class, the vanguard detachment will define the direction and line of march of the working class movement against the bourgeois rule and all efforts to disarm, corrupt and waylay the working class movement.
The chief hindrance/problem for the advance of the working class movement lies in the contradiction between the maturity of the material conditions for a socialist revolution and the immaturity or unpreparedness of the proletarian class to undertake direct revolutionary action of seizing state power from the bourgeoisie.
Although capitalism breeds the seeds of the class struggle of the proletariat and revolutionary change for socialism in the country, the bourgeoisie still maintain their strong rule in the country through the bourgeois republic based on a constitutional democracy. This bourgeois democratic government effectively institutes, promotes and defends the interests of the big foreign monopoly capitalists and the loca bourgeoisie including the junker landowners while paying lip-service to the real democratic interests of the broad laboring masses.
The bourgeois government officials together with the bourgeoisie in the church hierarchy and the labor aristocrats (who compromise the interests of the organized workers in unions and cooperatives in exchange of favors from the capitalists) strongly influence the masses of the working class. They deceptively present themselves as their champions through the use of their resources and the semblance of democracy in the bourgeois electoral process. They offer false hopes of reforms and economic benefits that would improve the living conditions for the laboring masses.
At the same time, working class movement and level of organization face problems and limitations that make the proletariat unprepared for direct, open, mass and revolutionary action for the immediate seizure of state power from the bourgeoisie and establishing socialism:
The struggles of the broad masses of workers remain at the level of day-to-day economic survival while the big bulk remain unorganized as only 8 to 12 per cent who are better paid and relatively more secured of their jobs are organized in unions.
Particular limited technological advancements of Philippine capitalism have produced a mass of destitute of unemployed and underemployed semi-proletarians in the urban and rural areas. At the same time, the number of the relatively advanced industrial proletariat which have generally a high sense of organization and discipline is small. A big bulk of the working class therefore have a weak sense of organization and are strongly driven by the individual desire to survive and entangled in the "war of survival of the fittest" in the decaying capitalist system
The leadership of the vanguard detachment of the working class has been beset by problems of disunity over ideological and practical questions of leading the working class movement. These have resulted in the disorganization of the working class struggle and the absence of a strong unified Party leadership over the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in the country.
The direction of leading the struggle towards a national-democratic revolution of the PPW-type is dissipating the revolutionary energy of proletarian militants and revolutionaries.
Thus, the historical circumstance by which the present revolutionary forces were developed, pose limitations that require the redirection of efforts in order to have an effective reach and lead the broad masses of the working class in the struggle against capitalist exploitation and oppression:
First, the bulk of the membership of the revolutionary mass organizations composed of a few thousands are rural semi-proletarians;
And second, the armed revolutionary contingents are inorganic of the mass movement and way ahead of the general level of working class struggle. Their effectivity lies more in supportive and selective punitive actions against specific enemies of the working class movement.
Confusion and demoralization within the socialist forces resulting from the failures arising from the experience of Eastern bureaucratic states and the unrelenting attacks by anti-socialist bourgeois forces have reinforced the position of anti-Leninist petty-bourgeois deviation that sow confusion and disunity within the Marxist-Leninist forces
[sic.] The peasant class has rapidly disintegrated and does not present a solid class due to the high level of penetration of capital and commodity production in agriculture. The material and class basis for a bourgeois-democratic revolution of a peasant-type therefore does not exist.
The land reform promoted by the bourgeois government under the capitalist system reinforces bourgeois-property -relations that is small-scale and inutile in the face of dominance of foreign monopoly capitalist interests in agricultural production.
The interest for land by the masses of the landless rural poor who comprise the rural proletariat and semi-proletariat cannot but be bound up with the need to change capitalist appropriation of the other means of production and wealth that ensure land productivity.
However, the restiveness of the masses is building up in the face of the worsening poverty and deteriorating living conditions that the intensified capitalist exploitation and oppression have brought about under the effects of globalization. Spontaneous participation of the unorganized section of the masses on broad economic and political issues directed against the government is increasing.
The experience of the broad masses in fighting and toppling-down the Marcos fascist dictatorship have developed a level of vigilance that prod spontaneous popular sentiment and action against threats of fascist revival.
The historical struggle against the attempts of the colonialists and their local cohorts to subjugate the Moro and the minority nationality peoples in the interest to exploit their natural and labor resources has been brought to the higher level of armed struggle for secession from the present bourgeois government. This is basically a revolutionary struggle of the Moro people to assert for their economic and political rights as peoples against the bourgeois rule which has the support of other anti-imperialist Islamic countries.
The neo-imperialist onslaught through globalization on the local economy has more than ever, intensified capitalist exploitation and oppression on the masses of proletarians and semi-proletarians in the whole world as well as in country. This is worsening the physical and moral degradation of the masses of workers as gains of worldwide working class struggle on wages and benefits and right to unionize are more boldly violated. It brings to a higher degree the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working class in the whole world that would ultimately lead to the final confrontation and resolution of the contradiction of the last class society.
At present, when the conditions of a revolutionary situation do not yet exist, specifically when the proletariat has low level of political consciousness and organization, the antiimperialist and democratic struggle must be advanced as the transitional program that characterise the specific approach towards the proletarian revolution. By this, the masses of the proletariat will gain political experience and be led towards the revolutionary position for the final seizure state power from the bourgeoisie and establishing socialism.
This transitional program will serve to advance the following three categories of direction of action:
First, the democratic demand that would serve as means to effect a change in the power relations to the advantage of the working class towards the direction of setting-up socialist democracy and serve the establishment of workers' power.
Second, the partial and immediate demands that will address the well-being and better conditions of the masses of the proletariat to safeguard their physical and moral conditions while at the same time, raise their level of class consciousness and organization.
And the third category of action will be directed against the foundations of capitalist property, power and privilege.
Around the task of advancing the transitional program, the Party must strive to achieve success in the following:
To organize the broader masses of proletarians and semi-proletarians in the rural and urban areas of the country and among migrant workers and develop more class-conscious proletarian elements as socialist professionals and militants capable of leading the broadest masses. This must be directed in leading the struggles of the class to improve their well being against capitalist exploitation and oppression and in conducting socialist education among the laboring masses.
To use the bourgeois constitutional and electoral processes and legislative bodies to educate and organize the laboring masses on the need to stand and assert for their real economic and political interests as against those promoted by the bourgeois government and labor aristocrats and weaken bourgeois rule. At the same time, this should serve to train and educate the working class on governance.
To consolidate the armed revolutionary contingents developed from the past anti-dictatorship revolutionary endeavors by maximizing its strength in supporting the general effort to advance the working class movement and defending it from specific and direct attacks against the interests of workers and revolutionary forces.
To advance and lead the youth and student revolutionary movement as a motive force necessary for the rapid dissemination of the socialist and revolutionary propaganda and strong mass support of the working class struggles.
To strive to lead and advance the social movements for women's liberation, protection of ecology and environment and protection of children's rights as complementary struggles integral in advancing the working class movement.
To strengthen proletarian leadership and consolidate the revolutionary gains in the struggle of the Moro and other minority nationalities for national self-determination.
To disseminate the lessons from the failures of Stalinism and the bureaucratic states and the dogmatization and vulgarization of the Maoist experience of people's war.
To strengthen the RPM along Marxist-Leninist traditions and new learnings of worldwide advance of the working class movement and against the anarchistic petty-bourgeois influence and internal deviations of discarding Leninist principles of building the Party as the advanced detachment of the working class.
To develop solidarity with the working class movement in other countries towards the direction of advancing the revolutionary struggle of the working class in the whole world for socialism.
The secessionist armed struggle of the Moro people from the present bourgeois government should be fully supported as a progressive movement towards the social transformation of society for a more socialistic relations in the economic, political and social system of the Moro peoples.
The small percent of rural petty bourgeoisie who emerged from the ranks of the disintegrated peasantry can be won over in the struggle against big foreign monopoly capital, the junker capitalists and the bourgeois state on the basis of the threat of their proletarianization and their common interests with that of the working class on the effects of intensified exploitation and oppression by global capital.
Struggles must be launched against the pernicious influence of reformism promoted by the bourgeois constitutional democracy together wit the bourgeoisified sector of labor.
The anti-imperialist and democratic struggle will be advanced by forwarding the three categories of direction of the democratic, partial/immediate and direct demands against the foundations of capitalist property, power and privilege of the transitional program.
Towards this end, the following specific struggles and demands will be put forward for action of the working class movement:
Struggle for the right to decent living and to have job security and just compensation in the face of intensified attack by global capital on the working class
Demand to safeguard workers against abuse of individual businesses/capitalists of using the Labor-Only-Contracting law to lay-off and violate rights to form unions, security of tenure and social benefits.
Bankruptcy declarations must be duly scrutinized by a tripartite body of representatives of the workers, government and the business entity.
Demand for employment and social security scheme for the unemployed in the rural and urban areas and the workers recently laid-off due to bankruptcies from impact of deregulation and trade liberalization, in the industrial, manufacturing, commercial, services and agricultural sectors.
Government funds allotted for discretionary spending that promotes corruption and extravagant spending of public officials should be scrapped and channeled to fund social security and basic services on health, free education and housing.
Demand for the institution of strict rules and punishment system against corrupt public servants in government labor agencies that violate the laws and compromise workers/employees interests in favor of businessman/employer violators.
Demand for minimum wage that is based on the daily cost of living as the only way of ensuring decent living conditions of workers in the face of continuous inflation and currency fluctuations.
Rampant violations on the mandated minimum wage must be eliminated by the institution of laws, strict monitoring scheme and punishment system.
Demand for progressive tax exemptions of wage and low-salary earners wherein the withholding and income tax will only be applicable on earnings higher than the daily cost of living.
Demand for protection from health hazards at work especially in industries that pose health hazards to workers/employees must be ensured through the institution of strict rules on implementation and compliance with corresponding punishments for violators of safety standards.
Demand and work for the economic and political rights of migrant workers especially in their countries of work to ensure the protection of their rights and welfare.
Struggle for the institution, broadening and defense of democratic and human rights of the workers, landless rural poor, urban poor, youth and students
Demand and work for the right of urban and rural wage and low-salary earners and the unemployed to form unions and associations together with their right to expression and assembly must be duly instituted, respected and defended.
This political right must be fully developed as the means to wield the strength of the workers and other laboring masses in fighting against the violations and abuse of capitalists who take advantage of their poverty and powerlessness to extract the maximum profit at the expense of their well-being..
Efforts of employer junker and other capitalists to harass, buy-off and subvert these rights of the labouring masses must be fought against and duly punished. Persons-of-authority and public officials who use their positions and allow themselves to become instruments of these violations must be exposed, made accountable and recalled.
Demand and work for the equal pay and maternity rights of women workers and protection against sexual discrimation, harassment and other violence against women.
Specific laws, monitoring system and provisions for punishments of violations should be defined and implemented.
Demand and work for the protection of children against child labor and the violence and exploitation of children.
Struggle and work for the more academic freedom and education that is readily available and affordable for the urban and landless rural poor.
Struggle and work for the protection of the democratic rights of the students to assembly, expression and belief.
Struggle for a more progressive and democratic structure in agriculture
Struggle and work for the expropriation of backward sugar plantations, remaining large tracts of rice land and other backward large-scale crops plantation such as coconut in favor of agricultural unions, associations and cooperatives. This should serve to provide employment and improve the living conditions of thousands of displaced agricultural workers, landless rural poor and the rest of the unemployed in these production areas.
Taxes, levies and social amelioration funds taken from the income in these crop lines should be turned over to these unions, associations and cooperatives for the transformation of these lands into more productive undertakings.
Struggle and work for the rationalization of agriculture, including the fishing industry, to mean the promotion of less expensive, environment-friendly, and sustainable production primarily geared for food security and for ensuring cheap grains and other food supplies for the broad masses of the working class.
Land conversions that only serve to intensify unemployment and worsen poverty and lack of food should be resisted.
Demand for employment security, disturbance pay and decent housing for the displaced of agricultural workers and landless rural poor where agricultural land has been converted for industrial/commercial use.
Monopolistic and dictatorial structures of merchant traders/cartels that worsen inflation by dictating prices and manipulation of food supplies must be dismantled.
Cooperatives and/or alternative trading and marketing structures should be set-up by the workers and landless rural poor in the rural areas as support structure in the struggle against usurers, exorbitant prices and the lack of food supply.
Support and work for the Moro and other minority nationality rights to self-determination against big bourgeois national and class oppression.
Work for equal and just relations with other countries and international solidarity with their workers and oppressed masses.
Write-off foreign debts incurred during the Marcos dictatorship and those which have not been of public use.
Abrogate of all unequal agreements between the country and other governments/international bodies .
Condemn and work against superpower aggression and violation against rights of nations to self-determination.
Unite with workers movement in other countries and work for joint endeavors in waging struggles against neo-imperialism.
Support other just struggles of oppressed peoples and nations against the scourge of the world capitalist system that would serve to hasten the downfall of bourgeois rule and the advance of socialism.
“The mass of the population is made up of the ploretarians, semi-proletarians, and poor peasants. They are the vast majority of the nation....”
“At the beginning of the struggle it took only a few thousand genuinely revolutionary workers to warrant talk of the masses. If the Party succeeds in drawing into the struggle not only its own members, if it also succeeds in arousing non-party people, it is well on the way to winning the masses....”
On the matter of the mass movement, Lenin has elaborated several Marxist points that have been used as guide in setting the framework of our orientation in the mass movement, as mentioned above.
As Lenin boldly added the matter: “You will have a mass movement if such a Party comes forward with its slogans at such a moment and succeeded in getting millions of workers to follow it. I would not altogether deny that a revolution can be started by a very small Party and brought to a victorious conlusion....”
Based on our reorientation of revolutionary strategy and tactics, following our repudiation of the war strategy in the revolutionary struggle, we will develop and advance the revolutionary mass movement as the main form of struggle while promoting its dynamic relationship with other forms of struggle (i.e. armed, electoral/parliamentary, etc.) that stand as secondary, tertiary, etc. forms of struggle, also with dynamic relations among them and the revolutionary mass movement.
This will be our conduct until the condition ripens-when the working class and other oppressed sections of the people are ready to seize political power, and the open-legal struggle will be transformed into armed struggle in order to ultimately crush the exploitative system and the ruling class. Or until an extraordinary political development happens such as during a fascist rule and the revolutionary movement are obliged to effectively advance and sustain the revolution.
The revolutionary mass movement is the movement and struggle of the working class and other oppressed and exploited sections of the people to fight for their economic and democratic interests and objectives which can only be achieved through the complete demolition of the exploitative system and the ruling class to ultimately seize political power.
As the revolutionary mass movement advances, it will gradually weaken the strength and power of the ruling class and system while building up the strength and power of the working class and other oppressed sections of the people. It will directly hit and weaken the foundation of capitalist rule, power and privileges.
The over-all direction of the revolutionary mass movement is to prepare the grounds for and actual establishment of socialist democracy, even at a gradual pace and a slow but steady foundation of the working class power.
This can be done through the relentless pursuance of the revolutionary mass movement. Even though we see that all components and favors are in the hands of the ruling class and system, the revolutionary mass movement must persevere in the struggle to finally “turn the table against the enemy.”
The revolutionary mass movement should never be afraid or be limited by laws imposed by reaction, on the contrary it should work to stretch and override these to widen the space for advancement of the revolution. Only through the insistence of strength of action of the working class and other oppressed sections of the people will legitimize this even if it runs over the laws of the reactionary state.
Hence, to achieve its aims, the revolutionary mass movement should have the following features:
as a vehicle for the advancement and intensification of class struggle.
As they engage in the revolutionary movement and mass struggle, the working class and other oppressed sections of the people gradually but in large numbers develop their consciousness on the uselessness of reaction in achieving genuine change. From here, as their consciousness development they will gradually but in large numbers heighten their form of struggle.
This will be its dynamism until it leads to the direct action of the working class and other oppressed sections of the people that will challenge the rule of the ruling class and the moribund system until its ultimate demolition.
as vehicle in the transmission of the political leadership of the party.
The guarantee in the revolutionariness of the movement and the mass struggle that we will develop and advance is the leadership of the Party. Accordingly, the revolutionary mass movement will be the vehicle in transmitting and implementation of the political leadership of the Party. Aside from the publications and journal of the party, the revolutionary mass movement will also be able to effectively propagate the party line and tactics, specifically in the concretization of its call, line and tactics. According to what the Party adheres to, the revolutionary mass movement will transform the call and line of the party into direct action, slogan and calls in the language of the masses to get the most effective response from the class and other oppressed sections of the people.
as a vehicle in establishing the revolutionary front.
As the revolutionary mass movement develops, it will become a significant force that will influence the other progressive and nationalist sections and individuals in Philippine society. With this, the revolutionary mass movement that we strive to advance will become an effective vehicle in the establishment of a broad alliance of the people.
And as the mass struggles are pursued, it will be the allies and prospective friends of the revolution that will volunteer for the struggle for genuine change. Hence, it is the revolutionary mass movement that will be able to effectively lead to a revolutionary front of all oppressed and exploited in the present society.
The revolutionary mass movement that we are advancing is a conscious and organized movement primarily composed of revolutionary forces. But we should understand that spontaneous movement cannot be disregarded and is in fact a part of the mass movement, that will happen in certain periods as the masses react from their oppressed and exploited condition.
Even on their own and without the leadership of the revolutionary forces, the masses respond to the oppression and exploitation they experience. Specially during times when the social crisis worsens and the inutility of the reactionary rule becomes more and more exposed, spontaneous actions of the masses correspondingly become more widespread and bigger. While the actions of the revolutionary forces also intensifies at widens.
It is the duty and responsibility of the revolutionary movement to link up with or join such spontaneous movements. We should be able to effectively influence the spontaneous action of the masses so that we can bring this, or develop this towards the correct direction of revolutionary change. The spontaneous mass movement is a bigger part of the whole movement and its development is important for the revolutionary forces to be able to attain victory in this struggle. However, at the same that we are persevering to bring this spontaneous movement to the path of the revolution, counter-revolutionary forces are also persevering to sabotage our moves. This is the lesson of EDSA.
Besides our pursuance to develop the essentially reformist spontaneous mass movement into the revolutionary mass movement, we should also be conscious—our initiatives and our leadership—the class struggle and the struggle of all oppressed sections for reforms.
Through struggle for reforms, the class and oppressed masses will concretely discover, acquaint with and utilize their own strength and power towards the development of their class consciousness.
Moreover, it is through this this inutility of the present ruling class and system will be exposed in the face of the widest sections of the people on the matter of genuine change for the sake of the whole world and the people. Hence, it will be their experiences in mass struggle that will mould and develop their consciousness to wage revolution and achieve genuine change.
There is no reason to worry or fear if we engage in the advancement and development of struggles for reforms. The important things is it will be within and according to the framework of the overall revolutionary struggle and only through the recognition of the process of wide reaching upliftment of the consciousness of the masses. This will be the guarantee that will not fall into the mud of reformism.
Whatever small gains or big successes we attain in our struggle for reforms will add to the strength of the people while failures will serve significantly in the development of the consciousness of the people.
Therefore in every opportunity and in periods when there are burning issues concerning the economy, employment, housing and democractic rights to social issues such as drug addiction, corruption, criminality, prostitution, and even on environmental issues, should be acted upon to rally the broad masses of the people.
As the leadership of the party in the revolutionary mass movement is being carried out, we should see to it that the development and advance of the revolutionary mass movement is paralleled with the corresponding sustained development of the party. Hence, in every mass organization, we should see to it that we are able to establish party units/ groups.
The existence of the party will guarantee the sustained development and growth of socialist cells in mass organizations, and ultimately towards the sustained growth and strengthening of the party. While mass organizations continue its expansion work in the ranks of the broad masses. When the organizations have consolidated its areas, this should be followed with efforts to form territorial organizations of the party. In this period, or even before this, it is necessary that party cadres along with socialist activists have been deployed in these areas to take the task of solidifying the base of the revolutionary mass movement.
It is the duty of every party member within the mass organizations, and the socialist activists, to work for the expansion of the revolutionary mass movement in every corner of the country. And during this process, we should persevere in strengthening and expanding the party by establishing party organizations in areas there is none and strengthening and reinforcing them in areas where there is already an existing party organization. This is the kind of dynamism that we want to develop in our work of advancing the revolutionary mass movement, so that it will eventually lead to the expansion of the party that will also result in the the advancement and strengthening of the revolutionary mass movement—an unending cycle that will that time when the condition ripens when the revolutionary forces will be put in the position to topple the ruling class and system and seize political power.
To be effective and successful in our work of expanding and developing the revolutionary mass movement, we should always be conscious of our style and method of work. Our determination and perseverance in pursuing revolutionary work will be reinforced by our immediate gains if we pursue the correct style and method of work. If not, our errors, weaknesses and failures will dampen our spirit for us to smoothly carry out our responsibilities and achieve victory.
Initially, and in every opportunity, our main tactic in expansion is to connect with whole organizations, unions, associations, and federations, and its key individuals or leaders to effectively influence the whole membership.
In this way, we will be able to recruit in large numbers the broad masses along with the upliftment of their consciousness also in large numbers. Following this is the solid organizing to be able to establish the bases or bailiwick of the revolutionary struggle.
Keep in mind that we will conduct our work within the open/legal organizations, associations, federations, etc. Hence we will subordinate ourselves under the process of these organizations. In other words, we should fully be a part of or a member of the open/ legal formations and we will not work in these organizations as members of the party or as a super elements or entity. Hence our style and method of work would be open/legal and we should be positive elements towards the advancement and strengthening of the dynamism of open/ legal framework and process. We should be persevering and committed in these process so that we will be able to achieve the highest, strongest unity.
Being a member of the party is not a license for one to supersede the processes of the open/legal. Only by putting forward correct and superior ideas will transmit the leadership of the party on the revolutionary mass movement. Just like within the party, only through free and democratic methods and processes would ensure the strengthening of the organization’s unity. Or in simple terms, we should already set aside the style and method of bullying. Aside from the fact that this kind of style and method will isolate the party from the broad masses, this will also stunt the growth of mass leaders, activists and even cadres and members.
Only through the proper style and methods would be able to differentiate ourselves from the opportunists, saboteurs and (iskirol) and others of their kind that will not create confusion but will instead establish the processes and tradition for a free and democratic approach.
Understand and utilize correctly the relationship of expansion and consolidation. In developing and advancing the revolutionary mass movement, there are 3 levels that should be assured, and this will be the reflection of work.
First we should ensure that all the mass membership of the organization are continually expanding and increasing in number. Second, the recruitment of socialist activists should be sustained; third recruitment of party members should also be sustained.
The matter of expansion and consolidation is also a matter of quantity and quality. Particularly in the aspect of consolidation, there should be a concrete reflection of quality of the whole organization—level of consciousness, strength of commitment, persistence in work, higher skills, etc. Hence this matter is smoothly planned and implemented to ensure expected results.
Understanding the development of conditions and development of skills/ capacity of the revolutionary mass movement.
In the process of our work in advancing the revolutionary mass movement, we should be able to effectively understand and correlate the development of the objective condition and the level of skills/consciousness of the forces. This (the objective condition and the capacity/skills of the forces) should always be balanced to prevent either the overstretching or deficient work which would result in the exhaustion of our forces or being overtaken by momentum. When we are already able to effectively balance and integrate the two aspects, we can expect a smoother development of forces and the level/form or work/conduct that adopts with the continually changing and development objective conditions.
Along with the no. 4 point, in every stage of our struggle, development of the objective conditions and expansion of forces and capacity, it is only appropriate that we are able to understand and utilize the correct form of organization and struggle towards more effective strengthening and development of our forces, skills, organizations and conditions—a cycle that if we are able to sustain will bring about a spiral development wherein every cycle moves towards a higher level/ stage that comprehensively responds to requirements so that the revolutionary movement will be able to completely prepare for the seizure of political power.
Comprehensive understanding of the relations or connection between the revolutionary mass movement with other forms of struggle. The revolutionary mass movement is our primary form of struggle, but this is not the only form of struggle that the party pursues. There is the parliamentary and electoral struggle and there is the politico-military struggle.
As a primary form, other forms of struggle will stand as secondary, tertiary, etc to the revolutionary mass movement. Hence it will support and complement the revolutionary mass movement. But concretely as it operates dynamically and conditions develop, the revolutionary mass movement will also effectively support at complement other forms of struggle.
While other forms of struggle ensure the strengthening and advancement of the revolutionary mass movement, the revolutionary mass movement in turn prepare the conditions for the development of other forms of struggle that will ultimately advance the revolution into a higher stage. This is also a cycle that should continually develop and be sustained so that development will move in spiral where in every turn there is a higher development that put the working class and other oppressed sections of the people in more prepared position towards the final aim of seizure of political power.
These are only a few of the important point that should be understood and taken to heart. There re many others things to learn and understand, or in other words, what we want is to understand the whole dialectics of our struggle and its development. Or in simpler terms, our being comprehensive.
It is a must that we understand and attend to our duties wholistically taking into consideration all aspects, angles and all interrelations of all elements/components. In this way, there should be no hindrances for us to advance and attain victory.
Sa pagkakatatag ng Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (RPM-P) sa batayan ng pagtatakwil sa Stalinismo at bulgarisadong Maoismo at pagpupursige natin sa pag-aaral ng Marxismo — Leninismo at sa praktika nito sa rebolusyong Pilipino, susing larangan ang kilusan ng uring manggagawa sa nararapat mabigyan ng masusing pag-aaral at pansin upang mailagay sa tamang pwesto sa kabuuang rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka.
Ang ating mga pag-aaral at pansin ay nararapat na malinaw na tumungo sa pagsasaayos ng mga distorsyong nilikha ng ilang dekadang pamamayani ng Stalinista at Maoistang pag-iisip sa pagharap sa usapin ng kilusan ng uring manggagawa. At maging gulugod ng ating pangkalahatang re-oryentasyon sa gitna ng mga umiiral na katotohanan at Marxista-Leninistang rebolusyonaryong praktika.
Sa kasalukuyan, ang umiiral na pang-ekonomiang sistema sa bansa bagama’t kapitalismo na ay isang hilaw o maldebelop na kapitalismo. Dulot ito ng dayuhang pananakop na bumansot sa pag-unlad sa loob ng halos mahigit 500 taong pag-iral ng Pilipinas bilang isang bansa — mula sa halos apat na daang taon sa ilalim ng Kastila, sampung taon ng Amerikano, tatlong taon sa ilalim ng Hapones at muli ng ilampung taon ng Amerikano. Dahil dito, hindi naging normal ang pag-unlad ng bansa na ginawang kurakutan ng yaman ng mga dayuhan.
Ang nangyari ay naging mina ng hilaw na kalakal at tambakan ng tapos na produkto ang bansa kaya labis na naantala ang pag-unlad nito bilang industrialisado o kapitalista. Kaya sa halos 500 taon nitong pag-iral bilang bansa, ang Pilipinas ay nasa yugto pa rin ng maldevelop na kapitalismo – kahit na ang daigdig ay bumubungad na sa sosyalismo. Ang tuwirang resulta nito ay hindi rin maunlad o debelop na uring manggagawa na hati-hati sa ilang seksyon.
Bukod dito, dahil na rin sa mga maniobra at manipulasyon ng kapitalismo, labis na atrasado ang kamalayan ng uring manggagawa kahit sa antas lang ng unyonismo — halos wala pang 10 % ng 25 milyong manggagawang industrial ang organisado sa mga unyon. Ang maliit namang persentahe ng organisado ay hati-hati rin sa mga pederasyon na malaking bahagi ay pinamamayanihan ng mga dilawang lider manggagawa at ng mga dating kasama na ngayon ay mga oportunista nang mas masahol pa sa mga dilawan. Ang isplit sa CPP ay nakapagpatigas pa sa pagkakahating ito laluna na ang maiku-konsiderang nasa seksyon ng progresibo at/o rebolusyonaryo.
Kumpara sa kalagayan ng manggagawang industrial, lalong higit na mahina ang iba pang seksyon ng uri. Ang mala-manggagawa na binubuo ng mga manggagawa sa serbisyo, konstruksyon, rural poor at iba pang informal sector ay halos hindi organisado o walang organisasyon o organisado man ay hindi naka-ayon sa kilusan ng uri. Kaya, sa kabuuan, masasabing napakahina pa o nasa panimula pa lang ang kilusan ng uri.
Sa ganitong kalagayan, wala sa posisyon ang uring manggagawa na harapin, ipagtanggol ang sarili at isulong ang makauring pakikibaka sa harap ng pananalasa
ng globalisasyon na ibinubunsod ng pandaigdigang kapital sa pakikipag-kutsabahan ng lokal na naghaharing uri at gobyerno nito. Gayundin, nawawala ang uri sa kalagayan na pamunuan ang iba pang inaapi at pinagsasamantalahang seksyon ng mamamayan na naghahangad din ng tunay at rebolusyonaryong pagbabago.
Ang globalisasyon o neo-liberal na pandaigdigang patakaran ng kapitalismo ang pinakahuling salot na nananalakay ngayon sa uring manggagawa. Naglalayon ito ng walang sagkang daloy ng kapital (pinansya, produkto, at iba pa) sa buong daigdig. Kaya ang daigdig ay nagiging isa na lang maliit na pamayanan kaugnay sa galaw ng kapital. At upang maganap ito, pinapawi ang lahat ng proteksyon sa lokal na ekonomia ng mga bansa para sa walang kabusugang pagsasamantala ng pandaigdigang kapital.
Sa bansa, nagkakaanyo ito sa liberalisasyon — pagpawi sa taripa na dapat bayaran sa pagpasok ng mga produkto, pribatisasyon ng mga pag-aaring publiko, deregulasyon — pag-aalis ng kontrol sa mga kompanyang dayuhan tulad ng langis at pag-aalis ng kontrol sa pagdagsa ng mga produktong maaaring itambak sa bansa ng dayuhang kapital. Ito ay nagreresulta sa maramihang pagsasara ng mga pabrika, pagbabawas (downsizing) ng lakas paggawa, rotasyon ng mga manggagawa at kontrakwalisasyon ng paggawa. Sa kagyat, daan-daang libo hanggang milyong manggagawa ang agad na nawalan at kinulang ng ikabubuhay.
Ang globalisasyon ang magtitiyak ng patuloy na pagdaloy ng produkto sa bansa kahit sarado na ang mga pabrika rito at wala ring hanapbuhay ang maraming manggagawa. At ito ay simula pa lang, panimulang bwelo pa lang ito ng pananalakay na ito ng globalisasyon, ang halimaw ng pandaigdigang kapital na nagnanais sagpangin ang anumang tagumpay ng uring manggagawa na nakamit sa kung ilang dekadang pakikibaka – pag-uunyon, mga prebilehiyo at mismong mga hanapbuhay na tanging inaasahan ng uri.
Bukod sa pagkakahati-hati ng progresibo at rebolusyonaryong seksyon ng kilusang manggagawa na bunga ng isplit sa Partido; ang patuloy na pamamayani ng dilawan sa signipikanteng bilang ng mga unyon at pederasyon; ang pagkabulok ng mga dating rebolusyonaryo at progresibong lider bilang mga oportunista at ang pananalasa ng pandaigdigang kapital sa anyo ng globalisasyon ng ekonomia, may dalawa pang mabigat na dalahin na umuuntol sa pag-unlad at pagsulong ng kilusang manggagawa. Ito ay ang mali o baluktot na oryentasyon/direksyong dala-dala ng kilusan at ang natural na pagkakahati ng uring manggagawa sa isang hindi pa maunlad o mal-develop na kapitalismo.
Mula sa estratehiya ng gyera na dinadala ng CPP, ipinalaganap at mabisang naipatagos ang oryentasyon ng strike movement sa balangkas ng umano’y genuine trade union (GTU). Sa praktika, itinakda nito na maging labis na kaliwa ang mga taktikang dinadala ng manggagawa sa larangang trade union. Dahil sa esensya’y ipinagsisilbi ang kilusang unyon sa gyerang inilulunsad ng CPP/NPA, sa aktwal ay nagiging propaganda lang ang kilusang unyon upang maka-rekluta ng mga kadre at mandirigma para sa kanayunan at hukbong bayan.
Kaya ang mga welga at iba’t iba pang aksyong inilulunsad sa balangkas na ito ng oryentasyon ay lampas-lampas sa antas ng pag-unlad na inaabot ng kilusang manggagawa at malinaw na hindi nagsisilbi sa patuloy na pag-unlad – pagkamulat, pagka-organisa at pagsulong ng uring manggagawa. Ang masahol pa, nagre-resulta ang mga pagkilos na ito ng pagkadurog ng mga unyon at kawalan ng hanapbuhay ng manggagawa. Ang kakatwa, kasalungat sa mga pagkilos na ito ay ang atrasadong edukasyong pulitikal na ipinalalaganap sa hanay ng uri – ang pambansang demokrasya.
Ikalawa, hindi pa nabibigyang pansin ang paglutas sa natural na pagkakahati-hati ng uring manggagawa sa iba’t ibang seksyon dahil sa hindi lubos na develop na kapitalismo sa ikatlong daigdig tulad sa ating bansa. Ang nangyayari, naituturing o naibibilang na ibang sektor o hindi kabilang sa uri ang mga mala-proletaryado sa kanayunan at maging sa kalunsuran na wala sa mga industria. At hindi nabibigyan ng seryosong pansin ang pagsanib ng mga ito sa pangkalahatang kilusan ng uring manggagawa.Ngayon nararapat nang mabigyan ito ng pansin tungo sa kalutasan para sa isang solidong kilusan ng uring manggagawa.
Bilang Partido ng uring manggagawa, ang nararapat at kailangang pangunahing konsentrahan at atupagin natin ay ang malawakang pagmumulat, pag-oorganisa at pagpapakilos sa uri. Sa ibang salita, nararapat na ang buong uri ang magawang pamunuan ng Partido tungo sa pagkakamit ng kanyang pangkasaysayang misyon ng pagpapalaya sa sarili. At mula rito ay magawa ng uri (hindi ng Partido) na tuwirang pamunuan ang lahat ng iba pang inaapi at pinagsasamantalahang uri at sektor ng sambayanang Pilipino.
Kaya bilang taliba ng uring manggagawa, kailangang mailagay ng Partido ang buong uri sa namumunong papel sa rebolusyong Pilipino. Mali at pinatunayan na ng ating mahabang praktika na akuin ng Partido ang pamumuno ng uri sa iba pang inaapi at pinagsasamantalahang uri’t sektor. At lalong mali na banatin ng Partido ang sarili upang pamunuan ang iba’t ibang uri’t sektor sa lipunan. Ang resulta, naiiwan o napag-iiwanan o nalalagay lang ang uring manggagawa na ka-antas ng iba pang uri’t sektor at nawawala sa posisyon ng pamumuno.
Masakit tanggapin subalit isang katotohanang matagal ring umiral na “nagtampo” at na-”alienate” ang mga kasama na beteranong lider manggagawa sa Partido dahil sa mga “PO” nilang galing sa sektor ng peti-burges na wala namang kaalam-alam sa mga usapin ng kilusang manggagawa o kilusang trade union. Gayundin, isang malaking insulto sa uri na ang ibigay na pangunahing pag-aaral sa kanila ay oryentasyong pambansa demokratiko (gayong ang sosyalismo ay sarili nito at siyang ideolohia ng uri) kaakibat nito ay ina-antas-antas ang kamalayan at pagkilos ng uri ayon sa pakikibaka para sa pambansang demokrasya at hindi ayon sa kanyang uri at pangkasaysayang misyon.
Ngayon, dapat na nating iwasto ang mga mali, kapos-kapos at wala sa lugar na pagtingin at pagtrato sa uri at sa kilusan ng uri — nararapat at kailangang ang uri ay maimulat, ma-organisa at mapakilos bilang uri upang mapamunuan nito ang rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka ng buong sambayanang Pilipino para sa kalayaan at demokrasya na ang ultimo ay pagtungo at pagkakamit ng sosyalismo — ang unang malaking hakbang sa lubos na paglaya ng uri — pagpawi sa pagsasamantala ng tao sa kapwa tao at pagbibigay wakas sa pag-iral ng makauring lipunan .
Ang pagpupunyagi natin sa pagmumulat, pag-oorganisa at pagpapakilos sa hanay ng uring manggagawa ay magkaka-anyo sa paglitaw, pagpapaunlad at pagsusulong ng rebolusyonaryong kilusan ng uring manggagawa. Ito ay kilusan ng buong uri at hindi lang ng manggagawang industriyal o trade union. Ibig sabihin, ito ay kilusan na tatahi sa lahat ng seksyon ng uri mula sa industriyal, serbisyo, iba pang informal sector hanggang sa mga komunidad ng maralitang taga-lunsod at mala-proletaryado sa kanayunan.
Kahit pa ang magsisilbing gulugod ng kilusan ng uri ay ang nasa industriyal/trade union, nararapat na mulat na sinasaklaw ng ating pagkilos na masasalamin sa mga konkretong programa/plano ang iba pang seksyon ng uring manggagawa. At ang mga manggagawang industriyal, partikular ang mga unyon/pederasyon nila ay mabisang nakakatulong na abutin ang iba pang kapatid sa uri.
Sa pagsulpot ng kilusan ng uring manggagawa, kailangan at nararapat na kagyat na pumuwesto ito sa unahan ng namumuong pangkalahatang kilusan ng mamamayan kaalinsabay sa pagsisilbi bilang gulugod nito upang matiyak ang militansya, katatagan, pagsulong at patuloy na pag-unlad ng buong kilusan ng mamamayan (general mass movement). Tanging ang kilusan ng uring manggagawa na nakasanib, nangunguna at gulugod ng buong kilusan ng mamamayan ang garantiya sa pagiging sustinido ng buong kilusan ng mamamayan. Ito lang ang may kapasidad na bumalanse sa pag-aatubili at pag-aalanganin ng iba pang mga uri at sektor.
Sa ganito, malinaw ang mga mapagpasyang papel ng uring manggagawa sa rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka; una, tuloy-tuloy na buuin at paunlarin ang kilusan ng uri; ikalawa, pangunahan o pamunuan ang buong kilusan ng mamamayan; at ikatlo; magsilbing gulugod ng buong kilusan ng mamamayan. Ang mga papel na ito ng uri ay kailangan at nararapat niyang gampanan nang magkakaalinsabay at hindi nang una-una (one after the other).
Ang mga papel ng uri ay hindi makakamit sa isang iglap kundi sa isang mahabang proseso na mahigpit ang dialektikong ugnayan — Sa proseso lang ng pagpapalakas sa sarili magagawa ng uring manggagawa na pamunuan ang buong kilusan ng mamamayan at magsilbing gulugod nito at sa proseso din lang ng pamumuno/pangunguna sa buong kilusan ng mamamayan at pagiging gulugod nito mabilis na mapapalakas ang sarili at ang patuloy niyang pagpapalakas sa sarili ang magpapatibay sa kanyang pamumuno sa buong kilusan ng mamamayan at mabisang pwersa sa ubod nito at ito rin lang ang gagarantiya sa patuloy na pag-unlad at pagsulong ng buong kilusan ng mamamayan.
Ang buong prosesong ito ang lubos na papanday sa uring manggagawa at sa Partido nito upang dalhin ang rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka sa tagumpay at malagay ang sarili sa pinaka-mainam na sitwasyon para humawak ng kapangyarihang pampulitika at sa ultimo ay kamtin ang kanyang pangkasaysayang misyon – ang pagpawi sa makauring lipunan kung gayon ay pagpawi sa pagsasamantala ng tao sa kapwa tao.
Kaya, uring manggagawa, magkaisa, pamunuan ang pakikibaka ng sambayanang Pilipino! Tanging ang makauring pakikibaka ng uring manggagawa ang batayan para sa rebolusyonaryong transpormasyon ng lipunan. Mula rito, magkamit ng maraming tagumpay tungo sa kalayaan, pagkakapantay-pantay, kasaganaan at kapayapaan!
Upang mapabilis natin ang pagkabig sa pinakamalaking seksyon ng uring manggagawa unahin nating tutukan ang mga unyon, pederasyon at institusyon na wala pang “political alignment” o hindi nakapaloob sa anumang bloke mula sa naganap na isplit sa rebolusyonaryong kilusan subalit nanatiling rebolusyonaryo at/o progresibo. Sa katunayan, ito ngayon ang pinakamalaking bloke kapag nagkasama-sama. Ang kailangan lang ay matamo natin ang kanilang pagtitiwala na ang atin ay isang matapat na hangaring buhayin, pasiglahin, paunlarin at muling pasulungin ang kilusang manggagawa para sa uri at iba pang inaaping seksyon ng sambayanan.
Masigla nating ilako/ibenta sa mga kasama ang ating “bagong” oryentasyon at mga konsepto sa pagbubunsod ng kilusang manggagawa upang malinaw nilang maunawaan ang lubos nating pagtatakwil sa mga kamalian at iba’t iba pang distorsyong nakapaloob at pumapalibot sa balangkas ng strike movement at GTU.
Gayundin ang lubos nating paglaban sa kabalasubasan ng grupong nasa likod ng BMP. At ang matiim nating hangaring mailantad at maihiwalay ang mga dilawan at iba’t ibang klase ng iskirol sa hanay ng uri.
Mula rito, mabisa na nating makakabig/maiimpluwensyahan ang maliliit pang mga independyenteng mga unyon na nadala’ rin o na-alienate ng mga kamalian, distorsyon at pambabalasubas sa nakaraan.Kaalinsabay nito ang pakikipag-alyansa sa iba pang mga mapagkaibigang mga pederasyon at/o anumang pormasyon ng mga manggagawa.
Katapat ng mga pagpupunyaging ito ay ang lubos na pagbibigay pansin at pag-atupag sa iba pang seksyon ng uring manggagawa – ang mga mala-proletaryado sa urban at kanayunan. Kahit sa panimula ay sektoral ang ating trato at paraan ng pag-oorganisa at pagpapakilos, nararapat na sa kagyat na hinaharap ay lubusan itong maisanib sa pangkalahatang kilusan ng uring manggagawa.
Kaagapay ng ating pagmumulat at pag-oorganisa ang pagpapakilos ayon sa mga demokratiko at anti-imperyalista kahilingan ng uri at ang lubusang pagpapakahusay sa pagkumbina at pagtataas ng pang-ekonomiang pakikibaka sa pulitika at pang-ideolohiang pakikibaka. Ang lahat ng ito ay nararapat na tumungo sa ultimo batay sa pag-unlad ng mga kalagayan sa pakikibaka para sa sosyalismo – ang tanging alternatibo sa aping kalagayan ng uring manggagawa at lahat na ng inaapi at pinagsasamantalahang seksyon ng mamamayan.
Sa buong prosesong ito, nararapat na kaakibat na inaatupag at pinauunlad ang internasyunalisasyon ng mga isyu at pakikibaka ng manggagawa. Kailangang maidebelop natin ang pagkakaisa ng uring mangagawa sa pandaigdigang saklaw. At mapalitaw at mapaunlad ang mga solidarity formations para sa nagkakaisang mga pagkilos – suportahan, kumplimentasyon at suplementasyon
Upang epektibo nating makabig ang uri, nararapat na lubusan nating isabuhay ang pagwawasto sa mga kamalian sa nakaraan. Sa kagyat, masasalamin ito sa ating mga istilo’t paraan ng pagkilos.
Nararapat na lubusan nating isaayos ang ating aktitud, pananaw at pagtrato sa mga kasama at mga lider manggagawa. Nararapat na maging lubusan ang ating pagkilala at respeto sa mga kasama at lider manggagawa, kung gayon ay hindi nararapat na sila ay nasasapawan, natatabig o nababale-wala. Bagkus, matuto tayo sa kanila at maging positibong salik sa pagpapalakas ng kanilang liderato.
Kaya, imbes na sapawan, tabigin o balewalain ang mga kasama at lider sa mga unyon at pederasyon, tulungan natin sila para mapatatag ang kanilang pamumuno at sa anumang pormasyong mabubuo para mabisa nating mapaunlad ang kilusang manggagawa, sila ang ating ipwesto sa mga susing posisyon at lubos silang suportahan upang makayanan at mapaunlad ang pamumuno.
Ang ating kikilusan o kakabigin ay mga unyon at pederasyon – mga legal na pormasyon na may mga sariling dinamismo st mga proseso. Kailangan at nararapat na lubos na kilalanin, igalang at palakasin ang mga prosesong ito. Sa pagkilala, paggalang at pagpapalakas ng mga prosesong ito lamang natin mai-istabilisa ang demokratikong tradisyon ng mga organisasyon ng uring manggagawa.
Sa mga unyon at pederasyong nasa ilalim ng pamumuno ng mga dilawan at iba’t ibang klase ng iskirol, lubos nating pag-ibahin ang hanay at mga palsipikadong lider. Nararapat na lubos nating napag-aaralan ang tamang istilo’t paraan upang hindi madamay ang hanay sa paglalantad at paghiwalay natin sa mga dilawan at iba’t ibang klase ng iskirol.
Sa nakaraan, ang mga atake natin sa mga dilawan ay may dating’ na ang inaatake natin ay ang buo-buong unyon/pederasyon, kaya, imbes na ang mga palsipikadong lider lang ang maihiwalay natin, tayo mismo ang nahihiwalay sa kasapian na binubuo ng malaking bilang ng uring manggagawa.
Ang ating pangunahing konsiderasyon ay pagpapaunlad at pagsusulong ng solidong rebolusyonaryong kilusan ng uring manggagawa. Kung gayon, ang nararapat nating konsentrahan ay ang pagsaklaw ng kilusan sa buong uri at ang paglutas ng usapin ng pagsasanib ng lahat ng seksyon ng uri sa iisang kilusan ng uri. Sa ganito, partikular ang aspeto ng pakikibakang pang-trade union ay nararapat nang ipaubaya o pangunahan ng mga lider pang-unyon.
Ang mga kasama na nasa labas ng balangkas ng mga unyon at pederasyon ay suporta lamang sa mga kahilingan/kahingian ng ating mga lider pang-unyon at kanilang pakikibaka.
Masinop nating balansehin ang pagpapalawak at pagpapatatag. Sa bawat yugto ng ating pagkilos o pagsulong ng kilusang manggagawa, nararapat na natitiyak ang pagpapatatag. Ito ang garantya sa walang humpay na pag-unlad at pagsulong ng kilusang manggagawa. Ang ating pagpapatatag ay konkretong masasalamin sa mga edukasyong sosyalista sa hanay ng uri at ng pagre-rekluta patungo sa kanilang Partido.
Bilang Partido ng uring manggagawa, kailangan at nararapat na maging sentrong balon ng kasapian nito ay ang mismong sariling uri, kahit bukas ito sa mga elemento galing sa ibang uri at sector na tumalikod sa kanilang uring pinagmulan at lubos nang niyayakap ang pakikibaka at ideolohia ng uri. Gayundin, nararapat na mulat nilang itina-transporma ang mga sarili bilang proletaryado.
Historical and Practical Bases in the Necessity of AS in the Philippine Revolution:
We rejected the vulgarized armed struggle — the War Revolution theory of the CPP — the strategic military line which is Protracted People’s War as the military strategy.
We no longer advocate the absolute reliance of revolution on the development of the army and armed struggle as the main form or chief method of struggle.
We rejected the dogmatic application of the Protracted People’s War in the Philippines, and the vulgarized application of ML as the principle of revolution.
In rejecting this PPW, we rejected the Stalinist tradition of Party leadership which is Maoism. We did not abandon armed struggle as a revolutionary form of struggle, as one of the revolutionary forms of struggle in the revolution.
In splitting from the CPP, we brought along with us some of their army formations and sections. The army led by them were led by the Regions and by the Visayas Section. We brought along with us almost the whole army of WV, the whole army of CMR and the whole organization of the Alex Boncayao Brigade.
What we need is not the rejection of the armed struggle as form of struggle. However, we must clearly define the theoretical and practical basis of armed struggle, our viewpoint and standpoint on this , in order to situate this in the correct direction in accordance with the strategy and tactics of revolution in the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint.
The armed struggle has already been the hallmark of the revolutionary movement and of the Philippine revolution. This is the reality that cannot be ignored. It is also a reality that in a crucial period of revolution we may neutralize, if not win over, some sections of the bourgeoisie and the reactionary class due to the strength and level achieved by our armed struggle.
We also take note of the dynamic existence and development of the armed struggle since the rebuilding of the revolutionary movement and the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas in the 1930’s.
The oppressive bourgeois state ever since has repressed even the legal activities and legal struggles of the revolutionary movement by means of its laws and its legal processes.
Hence it is only correct and necessary that the workers and the people should have a defense against the repressive violence of the armed forces (AFP-PNP) of the bourgeois state, by means of the armed struggle under the leadership of the revolutionary army and party.
After having rejected the Stalinist-Maoist Party of Sison, its Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution and the vulgarization of the protracted people’s war, the ML opposition (Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa) has set its mind and efforts on the work of reorientation so as to advance the revolutionary movement in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist principles.
Nevertheless, despite the reorientation and the basic ideological clarifications, some problems and pending questions remain. We are referring to the specially complicated matter of armed struggle. We have inherited big guerilla formations that are waging guerilla warfare.
Is it still correct for these formations to be tied down to proctracted guerilla warfare as a fixed military tactic, with no prospect of developing into a higher stage of warfare? Is there a basis for intensifying guerilla warfare in only one or two islands, in a situation where the military offensives of other revolutionary forces (NPA,MILF, etc.) have declined?
The question here is: what shall be the ‘appropriate military strategy’? Is it sufficient to define the tactical offensives as selective and calculated? Should we not shift AS to the needs of the tactical stage, where mass work and revitalizing the class struggle of the working class is the principal task?
Besides the problems concerning finance and logistics, the maintenance of several big formations can easily instigate intesified warfare, and invite enemy attacks. How do we face the ensuing intensified militarization? These are some of the many questions that we have to resolve.
We have inherited a vulgarized revolution. Sison’s war-revolution of the wrong type has put us in a problematic situation. At present, there is no civil war, in the sense that one section of the population is warring against another section. No active tactical offensives nationwide by Sison’s guerillas. No peasant war as envisioned by Sison, not even a spontaneous peasant movement, since the peasantry as a class is already divided, continually disintegrating, and in ruin.
After our split from the CPP, in the Visayas and Central Mindanao, where we have maintained an armed force, our guerilla units were fully utilized and mobilized primarily in rebuilding our mass organizations and mass base which have been previously broken up by the reactionary State through militarization. Our military actions were limited to punitive measures against anti-people elements, enemy agents and against selected and isolated targets.
In consequence, our revolutionary mass base in the coutryside was broadened and restored once more, and the open mass organizations grew further. The vitality of the revolutionary armed force was given an alternative direction, in a situation which does not allow active military offensives
Nevertheless, new problems cropped up as regards the leadership and direction of the tasks in the countryside and of the armed struggle in general. These problems are as follows:
Since the officers of the guerilla units were in most cases the ones who were also skilled in and capable of mass work, the work of leading the units and guiding the Red fighters was not sustained.
The attempts to maintain the integrity, identity of large formations of the guerilla units as primary organizations and armed force did not resolve, but rather added to the confusion among many members as to the purpose of all this, since these units were not actively planning nor launching military actions.
In another places, a guerilla unit formation was reduced to squads and teams, so as to move effectively in the barrios without being detected by the enemy. Such a trend went to such an extent that where before there were full-fledged guerilla units, now there are only armed propaganda units.
The full-fledged guerilla units were placed in a passive defense position in the face of the continuing militarization and enemy armed attacks.
The work of organizing the open mass organizations by armed guerilla units placed the security status of these open organizations and mass membership in a risky situation.
There were many cases of demoralization in the ranks of the Red fighters and officers due to the above mentioned problems. There was difficulty in recruitment due to perceived lack of dynamism of the revolutionary armed forces and the intensity of the mass movement.
The maintenance and mobilization of large formations of full-fledged guerilla units pose serious problems in finance and logistics.
It is clear that the initial attempts of providing new direction to the armed stuggles have fallen short of the Marxist-Leninist theoretical views on armed struggle and revolution. As a basic step in rectifying our past practice in armed struggle, a clear presentation of the Marxist-Leninist propositions related to this question of armed struggle is called for.
The present economic and political crises are not so acute as to bring the country to the brink of civil war, nor to create a revolutionary situation.
The recent mass demonstrations against the oil price hike, the worker’s frozen wages, the displacement of urban poor communities and other people’s issues have not reached a level where we see spontaneous mass movement in hundreds of thousands of people. The struggles of the working class against capitalist exploitation have not yet become widespread nor have reached to the level of political strike movement.
There are two possible scenarios: either the national economy will grow or it will decline. In the event that the economic growth will be strengthened due to the rapid development of capitalism in the country, the workers’ movement will also grow and become stronger in the cities and in the countryside, and the class warfare will also intensify. Will this strengthening of the capitalist economy and the consequent growth of the workers’ movement immediately bring about a revolutionary situation or pass through a period of gradual evolution? This remains to be seen in a future, which we cannot predict.
On the other hand, the decline of the economy which will be followed by fierce attacks of the reactionary State against the democratic forces, will certainly hasten the ripening of the revolutionary situation and the resurgence of the revolutionary movement.
A big problem facing the political leadership is how to advance the revolutionary movement, in a situation where the Maoists, opportunists, and splitists in the revolutionary movement are also pursuing their program and activities.
Even the Moro people are forced to confront the real difficulty of sustaining armed struggle, not only as a result of the local situation, but also due to the situation of Muslim communities in other countries. A big section of the Moro people under Misuari’s MNLF have already signed a peace treaty with the reactionary state. The MILF faction has also entered the talks with the State for peace negotiations.
The State apparently continues to allow some democratic space so as to create a semblance of political stability. Its primary concern is how to fully implement its economic program, based on IMF dictates. These are the programs of globalization and neo-liberalization that will bring in their wake more intense exploitation and more hunger, and which will also clear the way for more intensified mass struggles.
The State is giving a freehand to legal and open mass actions and to activities of the progressive forces, while keeping vigilant on anything that may possibly stand in the way of its economic programs.
Meanwhile, it is relentlessly attacking the revolutionary armed forces wherever they are discovered. Its military attacks go hand in hand with the ‘reconciliation’campaigns, in order to crush the revolutionary armed forces totally.
The conflicts among the local ruling classes are still in the level of rivalry of power within the bureaucracy and competition for the spoils of official corruption.
It is clear that at present, the launching of guerilla warfare and of its elements by large guerilla formations is not suited to the current level of class struggle in our society. There is no basis either for protracted guerillaism nor for a civil war. Given the objective situation, principal stress should be given to the socialist and democratic movement of the working class
It is important that we reject as a whole the Maoist line and practice, and the vulgarized war revolution of Sison. We should redeploy and reposition our accumulated forces to the greatest possible political advantage, and solve the grave problems of our military formations, while pursuing the armed struggle.
On the basis of our concrete experience in W.V. and Mindanao, it is correct to maintain the present guerilla forces. And it is the concrete conditions that shall determine how and when to shift to another form of warfare. What is important is our flexibility and readiness to reorient and redeploy our armed forces based on our military strategy and tactics in a given situation.
The new proletarian army reserves its right to hold on to its arms. The RPM is open to all means of struggle, including the armed struggle, which may take the form either of a combination of guerilla actions and insurrection, or of protracted war, or of civil war if necessary. Whatever definite form it will take shall be determined by the actual dynamics of the worker’s movement and the whole revolutionary movement.
We are undertaking the reorganization and redeployment of the Army and reviewing its role in the revolutionary struggle as a whole.
At present, the stress is on the reorientation and consolidation of all the forces of the army and its related machineries in accordance with the new framework and its role in the revolutionary struggle in general.
The armed struggle shall be a secondary means of advancing our revolutionary task and shall principally serve the advance of mass struggles and parliamentary struggle. It shall serve to advance the interest of the worker’s movement as to defend the political gains in the people’s mass struggles.
In this regard, the primary purpose of the armed struggle shall be to defend the gains attained in the political struggle. Although there is no civil war prevailing at present, the need for armed struggle as a secondary means is dictated by the political situation in our country. In our country, the existing democratic institutions are still politically weak, and cannot guarantee the protection of civil and political freedoms especially of the toiling masses of the people. Private armed groups are still being employed in conflicts involving the workers’ rights and people’s democratic rights in general.
The reorganization and deployment of the forces nationwide shall be concentrated in major urban and secondary centers in the Philippines with the important consideration that all controlled and influenced areas shall not be abandoned nor left in a vacuum of morale. Furthermore, depending on their capacity and necessity, this army shall be mobilized for expansion work in the countryside and rural areas.
Considering the political power and influence in the countryside that we have accumulated in the past, the armed struggle is necessary for the following reasons:
First, there is our class task of building up an independent force of the rural poor, of maintaining our mass base in the countryside and sustaining the revolutionary support of the masses here.
Secondly, we still need our mass base in the countryside which constitutes the bulk of our mobilizable forces, considering that the mass movement in the cities and plains have yet to develop sufficiently and have not intensified. Our mass base, which also form the core of the revolutionary masses under the leadership of RPM-ML, shall act as our reserve force.
In the rural areas, particularly in our mass base in the countryside, relatively large units shall be maintained with the following tasks:
to perform police functions in the base areas, protecting our forests and environment and against common criminals;
to do public service by helping the masses in socio-economic projects and undertake their own production work;
to support and assist the rural poor, the rural semiproletariat, in their mass struggles for employment and wage increase, for land reform and in campaigns against militarization;
to sustain the revolutionary preparedness of the people through propaganda and education;
to provide in our base areas a ‘rear’ for military training and exercises;
to assist in Party building; and
to do expansion work in the base areas
Our Army shall be mobilized in working for and supporting the worker’s movement, to rebuild revolutionary organizations in the ranks of Industrial and Agricultural workers.
Its support may be in the form of assasination and police work or public service against individuals or groups who directly prevent the activities and the development of the labor movement.
Our development and strengthening of the Army and the AS shall be based on the development of the mass movement. We shall consider and base it on the actual situation of the locality and the development of the revolutionary struggle in each place.
Punitive actions are undertaken against die-hard counter-revolutionaries, who stop or break-up mass activities and mass organizations, and those who commit heinous crimes against the people. The intensity and scale of the possible military actions shall depend on the actual needs and objective conditions.
In the cities and plains, the tasks of the partisan units are:
to perform police functions;
to defend the workers’ gains, if need be, from the ruthless capitalists, and to blunt the attacks of the capitalist State against workers’ organizations;
to maintain leverage in any peace talks or political negotiations that would take place with the bourgeois State;
to maintain the revolutionary preparedness of the working class through education work, until such time that the empowered working masses may decide to take up the means of armed struggle in the form of insurrection or in any other form.
Our armed struggle shall be charaterized by guerilla actions and partisan operations for the punitive actions against criminals and for the preventive actions in warning them. The conditions are favourable for partisan actions; and the appropriate units, base and network for these shall be set up in the plains and cities.
Having considered the theoretical and practical bases of our armed struggle, we shall program and plan our strategy and tactics, which shall depend on the moves and countermoves of the enemy, on his tactics and counter-tactics. On the basis of the enemy’s plans and changes of plans, we may maintain our guerilla formations and actions in the countryside, while combining these with partisan units and actions in the cities and plains.
We shall plan and build our network for partisan operations in the urban areas, pursue our mass work and build legal machineries in the intermediate areas. At the same time, in the countryside, we shall maintain our base areas in the interior with a relatively big force, pursue our mass work and build legal machineries here.
It is necessary to build legal mass organizations in the countryside and the corresponding political mass movement here. Without these legal organizations, it would be difficult to build up the reserve of our proletarian army, to recruit those elements who are politically most conscious and advanced, elements who are produced and tempered by experience in the forefront of political mass struggles.
At present, the general stress of our operations shall be the guerilla operations — the small unit and commando operations. Partisan operations which shall acquire tremendous political impact in the cities and adjacent towns, from team-sized operations upwards, depending on the capacity and need in the form of guerilla operations. We should bear in mind that the important and great consideration in launching the operations shall be their political gains in favor of the workers’ movement and the people’s mass movement, and the whole revolutionary movement in general. Whether to launch big or small operations shall depend on the level reached by the mass movement and the demands or need of the situation in the national level and of the localities.
Content and conduct of our warfare and the appropriate Army formations:
In our tactical offensives, we are giving importance to those targets, produced by the mass movement, targets which have great political impact in helping towards the further strengthening and development of the mass movement. Since the targets are hated by the people, our operation shall result in acquiring more political mass following.
At present, the stress of our tactical offensives are partisan operations. This is based on the analysis that the mass movement still needs to leap to a higher level, and also on the capability of our machineries at present. Nevertheless, in the actual planning and campaign, we are not tying down our army to one form or type, nor to one pattern of operations and formations. This depends on the needs of the situation, on the level reached by the revolutionary movement, on the capability of our army in launching the operations and its requirements, on the counter-reactions of the enemy against our Army and the whole revolutionary movement.
It is still difficult to fix from the present up to victory whether the partisan operations, or the guerilla warfare in the countryside, or the PPW itself, shall be the principal type of operations that we shall be launching. It is wrong to confine the Party and its Army to a pattern or a single mode of operation and formation, for they lose initiative and flexibility.
Generally, our operations shall be characterized by a combination of different types of operations and formations depending on the advantages to the movement.
This is a matter of giving stress to each type of military operation, on our operations and counter reaction of the enemy, depending on the development of a particular campaign, on the development of the revolutionary struggle in general. It is a question of being able to combine the regular with special operations, combining regular and special partisan operations with guerilla actions in the countryside.
In a military campaign, ordinary operations consists of regular operations, which are given greater stress in a particular given situation, while the extraordinary operations may consist of partisan actions launched by partisan forces and may prove decisive in winning the battle. In another situation, it may be the other way around. The ordinary operations may consist in giving stress to partisan actions, while the extraordinary operations may be those conducted by our regular military forces, which may decide the victory of a particular campaign.
There shall be no fixed form or mode of conduct for military operations. The mode of operations which is considered obsolete in another situation may prove effective and decisive in a given situation. Our military strategy and plans shall depend on the enemy’s plans and changes of his plans. Our tactics shall depend on the enemy’s tactics and countertactics.
As determined by the present situation and necessity, the partisan work shall be the regular or ordinary type of operation and forces in the army, while the guerilla work in the countryside shall act as special or extraordinary force.
At present, the balance of forces is favorable to the enemy, much superior than the revolutionary army in terms of numbers and strength. The revolutionary army and its political party should avoid decisive confrontation or engagements with the enemy while developing its own strength. It will concentrate its forces for military operations while applying the principle of fluidity, mobility and relative dispersal for mass work and expansion of its base.
In essence our warfare is political in character. The revolutionary army could never survive nor develop against enemy attacks without the support of the masses. The broad masses in the countryside and urban areas is the source of its strength for recruitment, information, finance and logistical support. This can only be sustained through the correct program and slogans of the party and its army that answers and coincides with the needs and aspirations of the masses.
Basically, our Army organization originally has been the product of the vulgarized ML revolution in a peasant setting, primarily based in the countryside, and carrying the orientation as a people’s army. It has followed the political line of the Party (CPP) and the national democratic line for the national democratic revolution. Mainly, this has served the anti-feudal, anti-fascist and anti-imperialist struggle.
The strengthening and growth of the Army has been due to the favorable situation of recruitment — except for the intense hardships and lack of resources in the countryside. Also a big factor in the recruitment was the intensified fascism in the past in the countryside. Besides this, the backward tactics applied by the state and its military arm in the past, on how to defeat the insurrection. In reality, the growth of the NPA in almost all the regions in the country had not been the result of a strong movement of the class in the countryside (the peasantry)
The majority of our recruits originated almost wholly from the peasantry, if not from the semi-proletariat or poor peasants, as a result of the anti-fascist struggle. While we do not ignore the fact that many were recruited due to the intense struggle for land, against high rent, usury and other forms of exploitation in the countryside, nevertheless their number is small if compared to the number of those recruited due to the anti-fascist movement.
The RPA-ABB is a revolutionary political army of the proletariat and the oppressed people, carrying a politico-military orientation. All its members and officers uphold the ML principles of the revolution and firm leadership of the political Party of Proletariat (the RPM). This army accepts socialism as the only alternative system in order to put an end to the oppression and exploitation of the bourgeois class against the proletariat and the people.
The RPA-ABB also supports the complementary role of AS and of the Army in the workers’ movement as basic ML principle of the revolution. It rejects the role of voluntarism of the CPP and its army (NPA) for winning the revolution.
The RPA-ABB has a proletarian class imprint. This is the result of its recruitment from the working class and semi-proletariat. It is open to the entry or recruitment on an individual basis from other classes or sections of people (Moro and Lumad including Christian settlers) as long as they are ready to abandon their class interests and to subordinate them to the interests of the proletariat and the revolution. All the former and the new recruits shall undergo this process of reorientation.
Since it is a political army of the working class and other oppressed people, the stress of its service is for the interests of the class.
During the holding of the First Congress of the new Party of the Proletariat, this Party must clearly define its relationship to and political leadership of the Army. It must clearly define all this in accordance with the ML theoretical propositions and with the vigorous and bitter experience in the past:
As regards the laying down of the strategy and tactics of the armed struggle, the type of warfare to be launched by our army, shall be appropriate to the situation of the Philippines and of each region, shall be clearly defined. The amendment or changes in this strategy and tactics be made in every Party congress and/or national conferences of the army under the supervision of the national leadership of the Party.
The Military Commission (or the Party organ defined and approved by the Party congress) whose members shall be elected by the congress, shall determine the national military campaigns.
As regards the day-to-day work in the Army, the authority and responsibility has been delegated by the Party to the Party members or organs within the Army. The Party cadres within the army shall have the initiative in the implementation of the plans and programs for the armed struggle.
In a situation where the revolutionary government has not yet been established in the national level, the Party shall directly guide the organization of the army. Besides this, the Party shall respect the dynamic leadership and administration of the independent and/or local revolutionary governments in other parts of the country. Its political leadership shall be exercised through the local Party organs within these same revolutionary governments and through Party organs within the army under the leadership of the said governments.
The position of the revolutionary army and Party as regards other revolutionary armed forces as well as to certain progressive forces in the AFP is to view them in a positive way. The RPA-ABB shall also show support for the struggles of other revolutionary armies on the basis of their progressive stand on people’s issues.
Political commissars shall be sent and assigned to other revolutionary and independent armies so as to influence and guide these armies on the correct path of the revolution and to embrace the political line of the Party — SOCIALISM. Commissars shall be assigned also to the armed organizations or units of the reactionary AFP.
On the question of massive desertion and defection of enemy forces to the revolutionary movement, we must correctly view this upon correct analysis of the prevailing objective situation and the strength of our subjective forces. Under the previous orientation of the Stalinist-Maoist CPP-NPA, there was a lingering expectation for a massive desertion and defection of enemy forces to the revolutionary movement based on the erroneous analysis that there was a prevailing revolutionary situation. Massive enemy desertion and defection can only be attributed to the intensification of the revolutionary situation, the crisis afflicting the ruling class and its army, and the strength attained by the working class movement and its armed component.
Following the policy of multiplicity of tactics, the peace negotiations is another battle arena from which we can achieve positive gains for the revolutionary movement, and draw concrete advantages for the people and for our revolutionary forces. What cannot be achieved from the bourgeois state through military means we may be able to gain over the negotiation table. For it is not a matter of using military force and relying only upon the same that our revolution can prosper. But rather what correct tactics are being used in the course of struggle, and how we use our military force.
One of the results of peace negotiations may be the institution of democratic reforms, that is, gaining full freedom for the working class and the people in general. Another outcome from peace negotiations may be the opportunity gained to bide our time to (and) consolidate our forces.
There are parameters in our conduct that may be followed with regards to negotiations with the enemy State:
We are not to be carried away with the illusion that social reforms can be obtained through peace negotiations. We must also guard against the machinations of the State to exploit our weaknesses or to undermine our revolutionary will.
To achieve democratic reforms from the State, we may not compromise nor surrender our position, nor weaken our resolute stand on the seizure of State political power for the working class movement.
We may negotiate when we are weak, not only when we are strong. We may employ peace negotiations during periods when we need to regroup and consolidate our forces.
With regards to the negotiations between the GRP and the CPP-NPA-NDF, we positively view whatever favorable outcome or positive results may come from the negotiations of the State with the NDF or MILF, bringing concrete benefits to the people. Again in this aspect we may not agree to any condition that would oblige us to surrender our position, or that would leave the basis and roots of the armed conflict unaddressed and unresolved.
Eversince its inception on May 1998, the RPM-P has primarily tasked itself to the theoretical study and practical application of Marxism-Leninism. All organs of the Party in the islands of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao persevered in this work along the lines of the RPM-P’s basic criticisms of Stalinism and vulgarized Maoism espoused by the CPP-NPA. This is paralleled with careful study of the objective situation and the particularization of revolutionary struggle for socialism in the Philippines through our anti-imperialist, democratic transitional program.One of the main challenges in our work under the prevailing conditions of class struggle—wherein the masses is not yet ready to wage revolution against capitalist rule—is the conduct of our work in the field of military.
It is always an option for any armed force waging war to enter into a negotiated peaceful settlement with its enemy. Presently, the MILF and the CPP-NPA are two political forces that engages the reactionary government in armed confrontations.
An immediate concern faced now by the RPM-P/ RPA-ABB is the entry into peace negotiation. The reactionary government uses this method to neutralize the revolutionary forces amidst the advancement of the people’s struggle against the onslaught of globalization. The reactionary government has thus considered the RPA-ABB as one of the revolutionary forces that it needs to negotiate with.
In this regard, the central committee of the RPMP lays down the following Marxist-Leninist principles and party regulations according to its idelogical and political line and other immediate tasks. This will serve as a guide to RPMP and RPA-ABB forces in the conduct of work with regards to peace negotiations between us and the reactionary government.
For its effective practical application in the over-all revolutionary struggle in a given period, there are two fundamental bases of Leninism with regards to peace and war. First, the basis for the assurance of maximum gains is the objective balance of class forces. Second, the revolutionary interest in a period of revolution which will determine the direction of war or peace.
In 1918, when RSDLP was faced with the problem of declaring war or talking peace with the conquering Germans, Lenin said: “the answer to whether we should declare a revolutionary war at this period should be taken from our estimation of whether the material conditions and the interest of socialist revolution permits it…”
In the ensuing internal debates regarding correct tactics, Lenin opposed the view that a war should be declared by Russia against the Germans to accelerate revolution against the Germans despite the fact that there were also problems in the Russian army which was still not prepared for battle. According to Lenin: “Perhaps the authors believe that the interests of the world revolution require that it should be given a push, and that such a push can be given only by war, never by peace, which might give the people the impression that imperialism was being legitimized? Such a theory would be completely at variance with Marxism, for growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions. Such a theory would be tantamount to the view that armed uprisings is a form of struggle which is obligatory always and under all conditions....”
The correct tactics to assure the maximum victory in struggle in a given period would be determined only through the realistic estimation of the actual balance of forces between reaction and revolution. It would be totally unscientific and an erroneous vanguardism to determine the tactics based on the subjective wish of driving the masses to wage war while they themselves do not have a direct experience and decision.
Furthermore, Leninism gave importance to the engagement in peace negotiation as a revolutionary tactic that will serve in the advancement of revolutionary struggle and objectives wherein, based on the balance of forces, the objective condition dictates that the revolutionary forces will not be victorious in its war against the enemy. Peace negotiations play a particular importance in giving a necessary respite for revolutionary forces to avoid greater losses and consolidate its gains.
Lenin said: “History tells us that peace is a respite for war, war is a means of obtaining a somewhat better or somewhat worse peace.” He explained that many oppressed countries in history have engaged in less certain peace negotiations but later were able to wage a revolution and won. In the Russian revolution, Lenin waged a passionate ideological struggle against what he labeled as “revolutionary phrase-making” and foolish adventurism that propagates the slogan “Peace is disgraceful, war is honourable.” Contrary to this slogan, Lenin campaigned for the tactic of engaging in “annexationist peace agreement” to avoid greater losses in the Russian revolution and use the time to prepare for war when the condition is ripe for this. He said “...If I accept peace when the army is in flight, and must be in flight if it is not to lose thousands of men, I accept it in order to prevent things from getting worse.”
In Vietnam, in a period of war for national independence against the colonial French, the revolutionary movement, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, engaged in peace negotiations to take time to rest and consolidate its first victory of freeing North Vietnam. And in the period of its offensives in the struggle to free South Vietnam from the imperialist Unite States, it engaged in peace negotiations to put the US in a defensive position in the eyes of the international community, to avoid greater losses and eventual annihilation of the Vietnamese revolutionary movement, and with that be able to end the war swiftly.
“....Revolution is impossible without a nationwide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters...for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that majority of the workers... should fully realize that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis which draws even the most backward masses into politics...”
Lenin considered this as the fundamental rule of revolution. It is under this conditions that revolution exists.
This kind of condition of class struggle is clearly not present in the country at this period. In reality we see that the bourgeois rule remains strong despite the growing sentiments of the people against the reactionary state.
The present administration effectively controls the government despite the issue on crony capitalism which bring about the ire of less favored sections of local bourgeoisie. While the issue of corruption within the government is publicly know, any seemingly serious efforts to deal with prove to be cosmetic and are done to cover the stink of bourgeois rule.
As a whole, the bourgeoisie are united in protecting and promoting their rule and in advancing globalization in the country. But if the present regime fails now in arresting the widening discontent of the masses due to worsening povert and the failure of the government to alleviate it, it is possible that the bourgeois rule will be put in jeopardy.
The masses of the working class composed of the proletariat and semi-proletariat in the urban and countryside has been experiencing severe poverty because of unemployment and inflation. Their abject poverty put them to greater oppression, strangled by capitalist exploitation and subjugation.
The organized section are now looking for alternative while the bourgeoisie continue its attacks against trade unions and while the CBA are being disregarded amidst the widespread unemployment and labor contractualization. The organized forces among workers comprise a mere 9% of the over-all number of workers in the country and this number is fast declining as a result of contractualization and massive lay-offs. Worse, the biggest unions and federations are being controlled by labor aristocrats.
A large section of the unorganized workers are influenced by the reactionary hierarchy of religious institutions through its programs that give them temporary relief from their everyday needs. For this reason, a significant number among the masses participate in mobilizations and activities spearheaded by religious institutions.
There is so much to do in organizing the masses of workers for them to be able to learn from their own direct experience that would call for their organization at conscious class struggle against the bourgeoisie. We need to seriously engage in the organizing of their struggle for reforms to bring about concrete gains to alleviate their condition, bring them to believe in their own organized strength and lift their morale in pursuing the struggle against capitalist exploitation and oppression.
But presently, the forces who are actively engaged in movement for social transformation remain divided. Confusion and distrust prevail between them – the civil society groups, the vulgarized Maoists CPP-NPA at the PMP are waging their own sectarian political agenda. While showing a wrong impression of milintacy in struggle, the CPP-NPA bring damage to the socialist interest of the working class as it continues to advance the vulgarized Maoist line and strategy as a form of organizing and mobilizing the masses.
The struggle of the Moro people for self determination against the exploitative rule of the bourgeois state is also faced by the problem of disunity wherein the MILF and the MNLF take separate paths of struggle. While the masses of Moro people experience dislocation and great suffering as a result of sustained and escalated military operations waged by the reactionary armed force.
Peace negotiation is an integral part of our revolutionary mass movement. Peace negotiation as a revolutionary unarmed tactics can help advance the over-all strategy of revolutionary mass movement. Leninism has defined the that entering into a peace agreement is part of the revolutionary tactics, which serve to advance the revolutionary tasks and objectives in a given situation when the balance of forces does not permit the forces of revolution to win a war against the enemies. It has the particular role of providing respite to the revolutionary forces in order for them to avoid worse loses and consolidate success.
But current conditions and level of class struggle in the country remains that of a non-revolutionary period when the following three conditions for a revolution to take place are absent; one, the readiness of the working masses to rise up in revolution and seize state power; two, the ruling class is experiencing a government crisis that has weakened it and makes possible its immediate overthrow; and three, that all vacillating forces have taken the side of the revolution. Marxism-Leninist principles further defines that tactics must be based on a truthful appraisal on the balance of forces of revolution and forces of reaction.
The RPMP has, therefore, defined that our tactics must fit the present non-revolutionary condition in order to advance the tasks of building and strengthening the strength and raising the political consciousness of the proletariat in the transition program of the anti-imperialist and democratic struggle for socialism.
Armed struggle, in general, is a form of struggle that is advanced in a revolutionary war period. But the revolutionary armed force of the RPA-ABB that the Party inherited after its split from the dogmatic Maoist CPP-NPA undoubtedly expresses a high level of political strength for the socialist forces as it recognizes the Marxist-Leninist leadership of the RPMP. The RPMP-RPA-ABB cannot do otherwise but maximize this armed strength not in waging a lonely destructive war against government military forces but in advancing and defending the mass movement of the working masses for the socialist transformation of the Philippine society.
In defining this orientation, the Party has therefore decided to engage in a peace negotiation with the bourgeois government in order to maximize the armed strength of the RPA-ABB in the struggle for the well-being of exploited and oppressed working masses. At the same time, it will also serve the objective of maintaining and further strengthening its armed force to be able to continuously serve and protect the interest of socialism.
However, the Party sees this as an indomitable task that will be a difficult and complicated process as it fully knows that the bourgeoisie, especially the ultra-rightists and militarists, have no other desire but the complete destruction of the revolutionary armed forces.
In engaging in one of these fields of revolutionary struggles as a revolutionary organization, we must have a clear agenda as the reactionary state has also its own agenda. In this field of struggle, we are directly dealing with the enemy of the working class, the instrument of oppression and exploitation of the ruling bourgeois class which has a clear agenda to dismantle and smash the revolutionary mass movement.
Our general agenda in entering peace negotiation is very clear in our framework, which is mentioned, above re: advancing the revolutionary mass movement in the framework of struggle for reform. Through this engagement, it will give the RPMP an easy way to openly present and propagate to the masses and to the general public about our transitional program, our orientation, our conduct and framework of the revolution, and the socialist alternatives. In this case, the masses and the conscious and progressive elements will be enlightened of our great differences with other Maoist and Stalinist, and neo-liberal Civil Society organizations. It will also serve to consolidate our own forces and organize and mobilize the masses of the working class along with their own demands and interests. Aside from these, we will maximize the peace negotiation to expand our mass base, allies, and networks of the revolution. Along with this, we could propagate openly to the general public the legitimacy of our revolutionary struggle and socialist alternatives.
Another part of the revolutionary agenda is to reduce the cost of war and preserve human and material resources. Moreover, negotiations or the pursuit of a negotiated solution can bring about or facilitate significant gains in the political field diplomacy united front, propaganda, mass struggle etc. and in the humanitarian conduct of the war itself.
Negotiated solution has become a world phenomenon in addressing national conflicts. For instance, diffusing East-West tension were done through negotiated solution and eased out the nuclear-arms race of the two-super power nations. In the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq territorial conflict was eased out through peace negotiations. In Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) had a peace settlement with Apartheid regime and enthroned into power through election as part of the peace accord; the Zimbabwe African National Union PTRIOTIC Front (ZANUPF) also enthroned into power through electoral exercise as part of the peace settlement processes; and the South west African Peoples Organization (SWAPO) of Namibia won and was placed into power through a negotiated political settlement via election.
RPM-P believes that class struggle, through the mass struggle of the working class, is the only way for the the working class to liberate itself from the slavery of capitalism. In this period of reforms, revolutionary organizing and the upliftment of the class consciousness of the masses of the working class should be pursued relentlessly through their painstaking organizing, mobilization and education in various forms of struggle for them to obtain their immediate demands. By this the masses will then learn from their own experience the necessity of revolutionary change.
From this, the open and legal mass movement will strengthen the organizing and leadership of the working class under the transitional program of anti-imperialist and democratic struggle for socialism. Accordingly, parliamentary form of struggle should also be taken that will support our work in education, organizing and the leadership of the class struggle.
We have repudiated the old strategy espoused by the bankrupt leadership of Jose Maria Sison of the CPP-NPA. While our revolutionary army continue to operate, this does not mean that will wage a revolutionary war against the state at present. The RPMP has determined the immediate revolutionary task is the work of consolidating the RPA-ABB that supports the working class movement. Military actions are being waged solely for the defense of the working class and the revolutionary forces against the direct attacks of the enemy.
The question of engaging in peace negotiation with the reactionary state as part of our tactic should be understood based on the prevailing objective situation, tasks and other requirements of our transitional program to socialism. Our fundamental principle is that the objectives and duties of the RPM-P/RPA-ABB serves for the interest of the class struggle against social injustice at inequity against the capitalist system. Under the present objective balance of of forces and in a period of reforms, we have no other option but to engage in a negotiation if only to win demands of the masses that will eventually benefit the revolutionary forces and the masses.
Hence, the correctness at success of our conduct in peace negotiation will be measured according to how it will advance the anti-imperialist and democratic transitional program and ensure the gains to serve our revolutionary agenda at present.
In this light, our conduct with regards to peace negotiations with the reactionary government should be in accordance with the following objectives:
To obtain concrete gains for reforms in some particular issues of the working class, both in the urban and rural, that will accelerate the organizing and upliftment of the consciousness of the masses under the leadership of the RPMP.
To demonstrate the correctness and justice of the struggle being waged by the RPMP/RPA-ABB for the interest of the exploited and oppressed masses of the working class.
To propagate the socialist alternative as the only viable solution to the social ills of the capitalist system.
To convince and gain more friends and allies; and
To give the RPA-ABB a necessary respite from the attacks of the reactionary armed force and allow them to effectively undertake the task of consolidation.
One of the most interesting debates within the left movement revolves around the question: is the Philippines capitalist or semi-feudal? It is a theoretical issue that has serious implications on left ‘strategizing’ and organ’izing.
Unfortunately, most of those directly involved in the debates have not come up with a clear definition of the terms they are using, especially the term ‘feudal’ or ‘semi-feudal.’ While the classic meaning of a ‘capitalist mode of production’ appears acceptable to eve’ryone, there is some vagueness in the way some writers approach the so-called ‘feudal’ or ‘semi-feudal mode of production.’ This leads some to a false type of reductionism, for instance, the suppo’sition that if a mode of production is not capitalist enough, then it must be ‘feudal’ ‘feudal.’ Or the belief that if the country is predominantly agrarian, then it must be ‘feudal’ or ‘semi-feudal’ as if the agrarian character of an economy automatically makes it ‘feudal’ or ‘semi-feudal.’
The RPMP asserts that the Philippines today is predominantly capitalist even if the overall capitalist development of the country is highly uneven and relatively weak in compari’son to the experience of other countries. To appreciate this; it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the terms ‘feudal’ mid ‘capitalist,’ the development of imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism and the capitalist transformation of the Philippines under the aegis of foreign monopoly capital.
Feudalism — This refers to a socio-economic formation characterized by serfdom or landlord-vassal relation’ship. This system came into being after the disintegration of the tribal and slave owning societies. Feudalism became the dominant system in Europe during the Middle Ages.
The word feudal is derived from the English and French fief, which is taken from the German fehu-od, meaning ‘property in cattle’ and later, ‘prop-city in land.’ The system stresses the importance of land ownership and the rights and privileges associated with such ownership. There are two main classes in a feudal society: the lords and the serfs or peasants. The ruling feudal class includes the nobility and the higher clergy, the latter emerging as the biggest feudal lords in some countries.
The feudal system is marked by a natural or subsistence economy and a stagnant, low level of technology. Specific forms of feudal exploitation vary. Generally, however, the feudal landowner’s main privilege is not to work but simply to enjoy the fruits of the land that is made productive by the labor of the serfs or peasants. The earlier form of feudal exploitation bad the serf tilling the land of the lord for free in exchange for the right to cultivate a small plot of land for the serf’s own use. The serf could be working five days a week on the lord’s land, and the rest of the week on his own plot. The free labor service, or corvee as it is called in some parts of Europe, came to be known as ground rent. Later, this was transformed into ground rent in kind and later still, under the impact of an expanding money economy, ground rent in cash. These two forms of ground rent developed during the advent of capitalism in Europe and made it unnecessary to divide the lord’s land into one part for the master and the other for the serfs. In many cases, ex’ploitation was (and still is in some coun’tries) intensified by the landlord by merely raising the ground rent peasants had to meet.
The forms of social existence for labor power was essentially unfree. Feudal rule was based on coercion tied to land and customs favoring the feudal lords. Economic surplus was pumped out under these conditions but of course, feudalism is different from slavery.
Culturally, the relationship between the lord and the serfs has gener’ally been characterized as paternalistic. In addition to the free labor rendered by the serf in cultivating the lord’s land, he and the members of his family are bound to render myriad forms of services to the lord’s family or household. In the expe’rience of other countries, serfs some’times even served as soldiers for the feudal warlord.
Capitalism — This is based on the private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor. There are two main classes under capitalism: the capitalist class or the bourgeoisie who own the means of production, and the wage laborers or prole’tariat who, having no means of production of their own, are forced to sell their labor power in order to live. Compared to feudalism, capitalism is more pro’gressive, particularly during the 16th up to the 19th centuries when the rising bourgeoisie was leading the struggle against the ruling feudal class, and in the sense that it expands the productive capacity of society through industrialization and the harnessing of the scientific-technical revolution.
The basic law of capitalism is the extraction of surplus value through the intensification of the exploitation of the workers who are forced to produce new wealth or value way above the real value of the wages they get for their labor. Thus, through the law of surplus value, ‘seed’ capital becomes bigger until in the course of competition, it either gets ruined or becomes monopoly capital. The extraction of the new wealth or value to be added to the original capital, however, can only be fully real’ized through the market where the commodities produced by the workers are exchanged. Hence, capitalist ex’ploitation presupposes production for the market.
Historically, capitalism traces its beginnings to simple commodity production, wherein the owners of the means of production are also the workers. This set-up is non-exploitative as regards production relations and applies to artisans and peasants who till their own land. It is only when the owners of the means of production start hiring people to work for them that exploitation sets in.
Technically speaking, many of the small peasants owner-cultivators and lessees in the Philippines who produce for the market are small commodity producers. They are small producers not only in terms of the ‘smallness’ of the lands they own or are able to till (below five hectares), but also in the sense that they are unable to produce enough surplus that would enable them to expand production through acquisition of more lands, hiring of more workers, or invest’ment in other undertakings. The presence of this sizeable mass of small commodity producers in the country’side indicates the backward and highly uneven development of capitalism in agriculture.
The above definitions of feudalism and capitalism are quite clear enough. However, what causes confusion to a lot of left analysts is the fact that a socio-economic formation in a given society may feature a number of modes of production interacting and intermeshing with one another. But the more dynamic is found to dominate, even replace, the others. This is especially true in the case of industrially backward and highly agrarian countries where various forms of pre-capitalist modes of production or their survivals prevail. Life is not a straight line, and certainly this is not the case in the development of a socio-economic formation. Oftentimes, the transition from one mode of production to another, e.g., from feudalism to capitalism, is a complicated and uneven process and defies neat and clear-cut delineations. The classic development of capitalism from the womb of feudal’ism as experienced by England and other European countries cannot be replicated in its primeval form in other countries of the developing world.
It is in this context that the methodology and works of V. I. Lenin find great relevance. Lenin emphasized the need for concrete analysis of con’crete reality, not imagining situations to fit neat theoretical frameworks. Using this approach and the methods of dialectics, Lenin came up with two seminal theoretical works that helped guide the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in the formulation of its program and enlighten the world revolutionary forces on the changing nature of capitalism as a national and global system.
One of These works is The Development of Capitalism in Rus’sia, Lenin gathered the latest economic data to show that Russia, despite its overwhelm’ingly agrarian character and limited number of industries compared to other European countries, was well on the road to capitalist development. To prove his point, he concentrated on analyzing the capitalist transformation of corvee or feudal agriculture of Tsarist Russia as a result of the rapid and general com’mercialization of agriculture, while also paying attention to the essential role historically played by communal lands. He wrote:
The growth of commercial agriculture creates a home market for capitalism. Firstly, the specialization of agriculture gives rise to exchange between the various agricultural areas, between the various agricultural undertakings, and be’tween the various agricultural products. Secondly, the further agriculture is drawn into the sphere demand by the rural population for those products of manufacturing industry that serve for personal consumption; and thirdly, the more rapid is the growth of the demand for rural entrepreneurs is able, with the old-fashioned ‘peasant’ implements, buildings, etc., etc., to engage in the new, commercial agriculture. Fourthly and lastly, a demand is created for labour power, since the formation of a small rural bourgeoisie and the change’over by the landowners to capitalist farming presuppose the formation of a body of regular agricultural laborers and day laborers...
Capitalism enormously extends and intensifies among the agricultural population the contradictions without which his mode of production cannot exist...Capitalism for the first time broke with the system of social estates in land tenure by converting the land farmer’s product was put on sale and began to be subject to social reckoning — first in the local, then in the national, and finally in the international market and in this way the former isolation of the uncouth farmer from the rest of the world was completely broken. The farmer was compelled willy-nilly, on pain of ruin, to take account of the sum-total of social relations both in his own country and in other countries, now linked together by the world market...
...By its very nature, capitalism in agriculture(as an industry) cannot develop evenly: in one place (in one’s aspect of agriculture, in another place another aspect, etc. In one case it transforms the technique of some, and in other cases of other agricultural operations, divorcing them from patriarchal peasant economy or from the patriarchal labour service. Since the whole of this process is guided by market requirements that are capricious and not always known to the producer, capitalist agriculture, in each separate instance (often in each separate area, sometimes even in each separate country), becomes more one-sided and lopsided than that which preceded it, but, taken as a whole, becomes immeasurably more many-sided and rational than patriarchal agriculture. The emergence of separate types of commercial agriculture renders possible and inevitable capitalist crises in agriculture and cases of capitalist overproduction, but these crises (like all capitalist crises) give a still more powerful impetus to the development of world production and of world production and of the socialization of labour.
Before capitalism appeared, the production of agricultural produce was always carried on in an unchanging, wretchedly small way — both when the peasant worked for ‘community character’ of land tenure was capable of destroying this tremendously scattered production... Capitalism destroys local seclusion and insularity, and replaces the minute medieval divi’sions among cultivators...
...Indeed, the fact that agriculture has been transformed from the privileged occupation of the top estate or the duty of the bottom estate into an ordinary commercial and industrial occupation; that the product of the cultivator’s labour has become subject to social reckoning on the market, that routine, uniform agriculture is being converted into technically transformed and diverse forms of commercial farming; that the seclusion and scattered nature of the small farmers is breaking down; that the diverse forms of bondage and personal dependence are being replaced by impersonal transactions in the purchase and sale of labour power, these are all links in a single process... (pp. 311–317)
To a great extent, Lenin’s description of Russian agriculture as it was undergoing capitalist transformation can be applied to Philippine agriculture during the last two decades when the government vigorously pursued the Green Revolution program for the food sector side by side with the promotion of agribusiness!
At any rate, the lengthy quotation above, taken from the voluminous work (686 pages) of Lenin, is meant to show how Lenin used both the Marxist theory of capitalism and the methods of dialectics in making a concrete analysis of the evolving capitalism in Russia. Despite the strong survivals of feudal’ism and the multiplicity of production arrangements emerging as a result of the commercialization of Russian agriculture, Lenin showed with great clarity that capitalism had become the deter’mining and leading factor in the Russian economy, be it in agriculture or in industry. This great analytical work of Lenin firmed up the theoretical and organizational foundation of the Bolshevik party, which was dedicated to a proletarian-led revolution based on the strategic alli’ance of the working class and the peasantry.
However capitalism in the Philippines has transformed the contour of Philippine social and political life. There is an uneveness and maldevelopment of Philippine capitalism. Philippine society exhibits many of the most advanced social features cheek-by-jowl with many of the most backward. From the tops of the huge skyscrapers of Makati, one can see villages that have not yet experienced an agricultural revolution. The modern proletarian, working in the sterile atmosphere of the chip manufacturing plant, has a brother who is labouring in the fields. She uses the highest technology known to humanity; he uses the methods and tools that have endured for thousands of years. But the societies are in a constant social turmoil. Modern metropolies are sucking peasant labour in from the countryside and proletarianising it at an astonishing rate. The social and political structures of such societies are necessarily under immense pressures. The beliefs and habits of past times do not disappear overnight, but at the same time new conditions of life produce the germs of new ideas and new horizons, as Marx and Engels famously observed in the Communist Manifesto. This process of social transformation has been the immediate life experience of millions of people in the Philippines. Born into a world of agriculture, they live in a world of industry. Born in villages, they live in cities. Born to obey the old ways, they struggle in a confrontation with the new.
The slow, uneven and maldeveloped state of capitalism in the country is the result of domination of big foreign monopoly capitalists and their extraction of superprofits from the country. The manufacturing sector is limited, with the food processing taking up the great bulk of manufactured products. More importantly, there are no basic Filipino industries to speak of, but only extractive industries. This sad state of the economy makes the Philippines all the more vulnerable to the recurring world and Asian crisis, with the process of maldevelopment being worsened by the neo-imperialist onslaughts of globalization.
The unevenness and maldevelopment can be seen in the various sectors of Philippine economy.
Agriculture still maintains a major role in the country’s economy. A significant number of Filipinos live and work in the rural areas. In 1994, almost half of the working population — 45 percent — and 45.1 percent of all employed in the household earned the major bulk of their incomes directly through agricultural activities.[1]
In the last three decades, faster and wider in-roads of capitalist development is noticeable in agricultural production. This could be seen in the agribusiness or cash crop production. With this, many changes have been brought about in the class forces and relations in the rural areas.
It has also intensified the crisis in agriculture especially in the 80s manifested by the downward trend in prices of traditional exports at the end of the decade resulting in the 3 percent low rate of growth during the period. The crisis began to be felt in the 70s when agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plunged from 6.1 in 1970 to 1.5 percent in 1980 then recorded as the lowest rate of growth in Southeast Asia. In 1984, agriculture contributed to about 27 percent of the country’s total GDP. Ten years thereafter, this contribution declined to 22 percent.
Food production per capita likewise decreased from 1.6 percent in the 80s to a negative 1.4 percent in 1992 while agricultural gross value dipped to a negative 3.2 percent in 1992 from 4.9 percent in the 80s.
When viewed in terms of ‘agribusiness’ or agriculture inclusive of related manufacturing activities, the importance of the agricultural sector to the overall economy may be overwhelming (Putzel 1994). In 1988, the direct contribution of agribusiness to the GDP amounted to 47 percent. Considering other related agricultural activities such as wholesale and retail and transport agribusiness contribution to the GDP may reach 50 percent[2].
But the economy as a whole failed to provide sufficient employment outside of agriculture. In 1990, agriculture employed an additional 140,662 workers. However, employment dipped to 19.3 percent due to decreasing opportunities,. By 1991, the sector accounted for only 113,481 workers employed in 12.5 million hectares of agricultural lands.
Philippine agricultural produce comprise a variety of crops such as food crops (rice, corn, tubers), root crops, spices, traditional export crops (such as sugar, coconut, bananas and tobacco), non-traditional export crops (such as asparagus and mango), fruits and nuts, vegetables and fibers.
The crop production sector represents 43 percent of all sectors and establishments involved in agriculture. In 1991, this sector gained the largest share of agricultural revenue amounting to PHP 9.85 billion representing 50.6 percent of total agricultural revenue (NCSO).
Total revenue earned by the agricultural sector reached PHP 19.45 billion in 1991, a slight increase of 1.4 percent from the previous year’s PHP 19.17 billion. Livestock production and the forestry sectors placed 2nd and third earning production values of PHP 7.24 and PHP 1.92 billion respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Percent Distribution of Revenue[3]
[Figure is missing.]
According to the NCSO, the crops production sector employs 86,497 workers or 79.8 percent of the total employed in the agricultural sector in 1991. This include working owners, unpaid workers, managers, supervisors, executives, permanent and seasonal and forestry workers.
Four crops — rice, corn, coconut and sugar — are of major significance to the country’s agriculture. These crops alone utilize some 9.9 million hectares or 79 percent of the total land devoted to agriculture.[4]
The first factor which determined the path of agrarian transformation in the Philippines was the experiences of Spanish and later American Colonization. Spanish colonization implanted the concentration of land ownership in two forms: the encomienda system of agriculture dominated by the clerical orders and variety of labor processes of exploitation coexisted based on serf, debt servitude and slave based form of surplus labor extraction. This variety was later replaced by the hacienda system at the end of the 18th century that more fully resembled European serfdom. The determining motive was to support the needs of the new settlement established by the conquistadors.
Another factor that influence the direction of agrarian transformation was the expansion of trade. It boosted further agricultural specialization at the beginning of the 19th century. The foreign market made abaca growing and sugar planting highly profitable. Foreigners, mostly British and American, were allowed to engage in agriculture and manufacturing. The large-scale production of ‘cash’ crops like sugar, indigo, coffee, copra, hemp and tobacco became a permanent feature in Philippine agriculture. But the production of cash crops required large areas and big numbers of workers. The land was not parceled out to share croppers and instead was tilled by wage laborer (sacadas). The sacadas often had to be coerced into rendering labor. Landowners developed patron-client relations to retain and conserved this work force, as wage levels were often below subsistence level. This was not yet, however, ‘free’ wage, as patron-client relations continued.
The coming of the American did not alter the concentration of land ownership nor alter the basic structure of agrarian relations. The free trade policy continued land accumulation process. Free trade relations have encouraged big land owners to invest heavily in the production of sugar, copra, and hemp for export to the United States. The free exchange of goods without tariff from 1909 to 1934 structured the colonial economy into a pattern of dependence and underdevelopment.
The American investments in the Philippines, on the other hand, were concentrated in the extractive industries like mining and logging. American companies also invested in agricultural export crops such as pineapples. The establishment of large-scale commercial plantations and petty commodity production in Mindanao occurred after the consolidation of American colonial authority.
The capitalist transition in Philippine agriculture showed the monopolization of land by a few families. Few families owned huge tract of land, sugar haciendas or commercial agricultural estates. There was also great deal of intermeshing with feudal and pre-capitalist forms of agriculture. The majority of those who sold their labor power and worked on the land remained landless and poor.
The existing of land concentration accounts for the popularity of ‘semi-feudal’ thesis in the Philippines. However, the size of concentrations is not evidence of feudalism itself. Rather the large land holdings reflect the basis upon which capitalist agricultural developed on older class formation. In spite of huge land holdings and landlordism a general process of capitalist expansion occurred, defined as the erosion of the natural economy, growth of social division of labor, accumulation of merchant and usurer capital, and increasing social differentiation into wage laborer, petty commodity producers and capitalist farmers.
This unevenness of capitalist transition is more evident in the race and corn production. We can see remnants of sharecropping and land rent as key forms of surplus labor appropriation. Indeed, these forms intensified despite successive land reform measure especially in the rice and corn areas. Landowners continue to appropriate surplus labor through share cropping and later leasehold tenancy. Yet, there was also significant development of owner cultivators and large capitalist farms in rice and corn areas in Luzon. The class composition reveals a significant layer of the population dependent on wage labor and the dominant role played by the merchant and finance capital in the production process.
In the study done by the Visayas Group reveals the extend of capitalist penetration in the rice and corn areas which resulted to a combined and uneven development. To quote extensively from the research:
Rice and corn are food staples. Three fourths of the 70 million Filipinos eat rice, and nearly a quarter, mostly in the Visayas and some parts of Mindanao are basically corn eaters. There were no shifts in uses of these grains until the 90s when corn consumption gradually shifted from human food to animal feed and corn production gradually shifted from white corn to yellow corn. By 1992, about 70 percent of corn produced in the country is consumed by the livestock industry, following the shift from white corn to yellow corn.
Until modern rice varieties were introduced in 1966, average yield per hectare was 1.3 MT and annual production on 3.1 million hectares of riceland amounted to 4.1 MT. Since then, production has doubled and rice hectarage increased by about 7 percent to 3.6 million in 1994. Subsequently, production increased to 10.5 million tons. Thus, in the same year, rice production posted a 5 percent real GVA representing a contribution of 22.32 percent to agriculture’s total real GVA.
Corn, on the other hand, is planted in 3 million hectares of land representing half of the total area planted to grains. In 1994, corn output was 4.5 million metric tons. From the 70s through the 90s, corn showed most promise among the country’s four major crops (namely, rice, corn, sugar and coconut), in terms of GVA growth. During the period, corn GVA surpassed that of rice (3.3 percent). In terms of hectarage, corn areas surpassed that of rice since the mid 80s although the trend was reversed in 1991. By 1994, corn GVA declined to 1.4 percent of the real GDP, 12 percent lower than its share in 1984. On the whole, this amounted to a 6.3 percent contribution to total agriculture GVA.
Corn production is concentrated in Mindanao, in the North, South, Central and ARMM regions contributing a total of 68.4 percent to national production (BAS, 1995). The skew would have been favorable to the Mindanao economy were it not for the fact that end-use is concentrated in the National Capital Region. Majority of feed millers and commercial poultry and livestock raisers operate in the NCR with an aggregate production capacity of 525 metric tons (BAI, Animal Feeds and Control Division). Unlike corn, rice production is scattered although certain areas in the major islands of the country are described as rice granaries.
Production of basic food crops is costly, labor intensive, and highly dependent on chemical farm inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. At present, attaining the national standard per hectare yield of 3 tons of palay over rain-fed areas requires an estimated input cost of about PHP 9,145.00 per hectare (Tables 5).[5] This cost represents a significant 46.04 percent of the overall average production cost of about PHP 19,864.00.
Cost of production for rice, however, vary according to location and purpose. In a study conducted in Sultan Kudarat, average production cost for one hectare with an average yield of 3 tons would require PHP 16,845.00. This is significantly higher than costs incurred in San Joaquin in the Visayas (PHP 9,655) for the same size of land.
Table 5: Average Production Cost, %age of Major Budget Items in Rice ProductionOver a Hectare of Land in a Single Cropping (San Joaquin, Sultan Kudarat and Tarlac)
| Item |
Unit |
Unit Cost |
Total Cost |
% of Major Budget Line to Cost of Production |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm Inputs | 46.04 | |||
| Certified Seeds (Bags) | 2.3 | 750.00 | 2,800.00 | |
| Fertiliser (Bags) | ||||
| 14-14-14 | 4.3 | 461.67 | 2,680.00 | |
| Ammonium Sulphate | 2.3 | 525.00 | 1,225.00 | |
| UREA | 2 | 406.67 | 640.00 | |
| Pesticides (Quarts) | ||||
| Cymbush | 1 | 516.67 | 675.00 | |
| 24D | 1 | 376.67 | 450.00 | |
| Sofit | 1 | 508.33 | 675.00 | |
| Labor Cost | 32.09 | |||
| Soil Preparation | 25 | 80.00 | 2,000.00 | |
| (Meals) | 25 | 5.00 | 125.00 | |
| Planting | 25 | 80.00 | 2,000.00 | |
| (Meals) | 25 | 5.00 | 125.00 | |
| Harvesting | 25 | 80.00 | 2,000.00 | |
| (Meals) | 25 | 5.00 | 125.00 | |
| Equipment Rental (per 8 Hours) | ||||
| Hand Tractor | 2 | 700.00 | 1,400.00 | |
| Threshing (10% of Yield) | 8 | 368.00 | 2,944.00 | 21.87 |
| TOTAL | 19,864.00 |
The Philippine corn industry is a high-cost producer. A 1991 study by Setboonsang and Rosegrant reveals that production and marketing costs per metric ton in the country was higher than in Thailand. Average costs (in US Dollars) were 132.81 and 111.86 respectively. The most productive provinces like South Cotabato and Isabela even posted higher costs than the national average. In Isabela, production cost per metric tons was 115.25 and marketing 56.64 (1989) or an aggregate cost of 171.89 US Dollars per metric ton. In South Cotabato, the aggregate cost was at an average of 153.72 US dollars per metric ton.
Table 6. Corn Production and Marketing Cost Differentials, Philippines and Thailand, 1989
(In US$ per metric ton, 1989 official exchange rate)
South Cotabato |
Isabela |
Philippine Average |
Thailand Average |
Percent Difference at averages |
Percent difference with South Cotabato |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost Item |
||||||||
Production |
88.65 |
115.25 |
101.95 |
76.35 |
33.5 |
16.1 |
||
Marketing |
66.07 |
56.64 |
60.86 |
35.51 |
71.4 |
86.1 |
||
Total Cost |
153.72 |
171.89 |
132.81 |
111.86 |
45.5 |
37.4 |
||
Marketing Total |
0.43 |
0.33 |
0.37 |
0.32 |
||||
Cost Ratio |
[sic] |
|||||||
In case studies on corn production conducted by MODE Inc. in South Cotabato and Bukidnon, it was found out that interest rates for production loans ran as high as 10 to 15 percent a month with a maturity of three months payable at the end of the cropping season.
In Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac, money lenders charge 5 percent a month over a period of six months at discounted interest rates. Some even charge as high as a cavan of palay for every PHP 1,000 loan payable during the harvest season. In Antique, this system is called aleli and farmer-borrowers pay two cavans per PHP 1,000.
The financial landscape in rice and corn areas is dominated by the informal credit markets. Formal credit assistance to farmers is scarce, especially among individual farmers. Formal financing institutions such as rural banks and commercial banks usually do not extend production loans due to high risks of delinquency or defaults. Besides, rice and corn farmers are considered less bankable because of the smallness of their assets. From 1981 to 1990, the corn sector received only between 0.79–1.60 percent of total credit assistance granted to agriculture.
According to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, the share of corn loans to total agricultural loans was below one percent from 1981 to 1986. This share rose to two percentage points from 1987 to 1989 but slid down to 1.60 percent by 1990.
High production costs are traceable to high interest rates, high cost of farm inputs and exorbitant land rent. Very significant portions of farmers’ incomes are spent on imported chemical inputs the prices of which keep on increasing. These costs represent foregone income on the part of farmers as well as surplus transfused to inputs dealers and chemical and fertilizer companies. From 1973 to 1974, prices of petroleum-based fertilizer alone quadrupled from $4.00 to $17.00 a bag significantly eroding farm incomes.[6]
Farm incomes in rice production vary according to land size, the amount of agricultural inputs applied and tenurial arrangement. In Sta. Ignacia, a predominantly rice farming community in Tarlac, 58.31 percent of the gross income from a hectare of land of small owner-cultivators represents the cost of production. Of the amount, 21.65 percent or PHP 6,375.00 is spent on hired labor, 16.73 percent (PHP 2,872.00) for equipment rentals and 16.31 percent (PHP 2,800.00) for certified seeds.
The average gross income on a hectare of rain-fed land is PHP 29,440.00. Considering all the costs incurred in the production process, an owner-cultivator realizes a net income of about PHP12,273.00. This represents the household disposable income for six (6) months until the next cropping season. This would mean that a family of six (6) will have to subsist on a PHP 68.18 daily budget. This income is further eroded if the farmer is still tied with amortization payments for his land.
Leaseholders, on the other hand, earn PHP29,204.75[7] from cultivation of a hectare of land in a single cropping period. Unlike owner-cultivators, they shoulder added cost such as for land rent, which is legally set at 25 percent of the net income or higher depending on the agreement.
Thus, leaseholders’ incomes vary with a large portion representing foregone income due to exorbitant interests on loans. On the average, a leaseholder earns PHP 9,204.75 from a hectare of land, which translates to a monthly income of PHP1,534.13 or a measly PHP 51.14 per day. With production burdened by increasing costs of production and land rent, a leaseholder is compelled to employ more capital and expand land size in order to realize sufficient returns from his productive endeavors.
In a study conducted by MODE, average costs for all types of corn amounted to PHP 4,422 per hectare against gross returns of PHP 5,536. Yellow corn gave higher gross returns at PHP 7,087 per hectare. However, total production costs are also higher at PHP 1,413 per hectare against PHP 963 for white corn farmers.
High production costs for yellow corn HYVs race up against returns. High production and marketing costs are disadvantages that reinforce each other and translate into high prices. The price of Philippine yellow corn is 46 percent higher than that of Thailand’s.
The production of rice and corn is costly and capital intensive. Bad agricultural practices and high doses of chemical inputs contribute to soil erosion and decrease in fertility, hence, the long term economic viability of HYVs. The ensuing environmental damage translates into huge social costs.
The above costs will become more apparent and all the more serious as the government’s Medium Term Agricultural Development Program transform Philippine agriculture. In the program, 3.1 million hectares of rice and corn lands will be converted for the production of more globally competitive non-food crops. And by the year 2025, the food security of 115 million Filipinos will hang in the balance and become dependent on global markets impacting on the production of rice and corn in a drastically reduced area.
In Luzon, the market for rice is a multi-tiered system (Figure 2).[8] From the farm, rice passes through layers of middlemen/traders before it reaches the consumers. Similar studies in rice farming communities in the Visayas and Mindanao also reveal the same pattern, the only difference being the layers of middlemen in the whole marketing process.
Figure 2. The Rice Marketing Structure
[Figure is missing.]
Rice Marketing is largely an affair of the private sector dominated by huge traders and millers organized as cartels in many areas. Their intricate organization and control of capital enable influence and control over the processes that runs the gamut from production to commodity pricing.
Government intervention in the rice industry is hinged on the goals of maintaining a stable supply of food and low prices at the same time affording reasonable returns to rice production. These goals underscore the dual nature of rice as a political and economic commodity. The NFAs attempt at supplanting the layers of middlemen in the system only prove as effective as the volume of procurements. In the province of Antique, the NFA is able to influence only 4 percent of the rice market. In 1995, it stood inutile during the provincial rice shortage at a time when the province was enjoying a huge surplus in production.
An assessment made by the Asian Development Bank in 1982 revealed that most domestic marketing is handled by private traders. NFA absorbs only 10 percent of the sales/procurements at the wholesale level and 1 percent at its 500 retail outlets, as against 90 and 99 percent of wholesale and retail trading controlled by the private sector.[9]
Higher farmgate prices offered by private traders and millers further impose difficulties in NFA procurements. Moreover, higher farmgate prices become incentives influencing farmers to unload larger portions of their produce to the commodity market rather than keeping reserves for consumption.
A Philippine Peasant Institute study notes that 36.46 percent of the average yield per cropping season finds its way to the market for cash, 23 percent for consumption, 15.11 percent for labor payments and about 24.84 percent for seeds, wastage and others. Pressed by meagre farm incomes and soaring production costs, many farmers are compelled to sell palay meant for consumption raising to 60 percent the volume of produce reaching the market in exchange for cash. In rice producing provinces like Antique, this volume reaches 50–80 percent immediately after harvest
The local rice and corn market is basically feasible and viable given the fact that demand for food is constant and demand for feeds is rising. Rice replaces corn for food and vice-versa. Reduction in corn-for-food demand is partly due to changing food consumption habits and availability of rice. When the country imported rice from 1970 to 1976, one half of the total corn supply was used for food. But when rice supplies became abundant from 1978 to 1982, demand for corn-for-food declined to 41 percent (Lara, 1992). In the long term, demand for these commodities will continue to widen proportionately to the still growing population.
Varieties of corn used in production respond mainly to market demands as against subsistence requirements in the past. The shift from corn-for-food to corn-for-feed, plus the increasing demand of the expanding livestock industry drastically changed the market for corn. Corn demand for food declined from 44 percent in 1980 to 17.9 percent ten years later, while that of feeds rose from 53 percent to 80 percent in the same period (BAS 1989–90). Global trade liberalization, however, is likely to reverse the domestic demand for yellow corn as traders tend to shift to imported poultry and meat therefore dampening activity in the domestic livestock market.
While there is a shift in demand for corn use, overall market demand is high and production remain below par. Market demand for corn amounted to 14,000 bags daily and production never had enough to meet demand. As a result imports covered the deficit. Imports averaged 250,000 metric tons or $15 million a year (Lara, 1992). In 1990, the country imported a record high of 345,000 metric tons amounting to $39.3 million.
Unlike corn, there has been no major shift in rice use. However, the Department of Agriculture is contemplating on the use of palay and its by-products as feed additive or feed base. Rice production had always been a race against demand, thus, the Philippines remains a net importer of this food crop. In contemporary times, rice production is threatened by the availability of cheaper sources from other countries like Vietnam and Thailand.
The ideal formula for a responsive market consist of just tenurial arrangements, affordable credit, availability of basic infrastructures and downstream markets in production areas’.
In sum, the following features could be seen in the rice and corn production:
landowners appropriating surplus labor through share cropping and leasehold tenancy (rent).
merchant capitalist (both trader and usurer) sector has emerged whose interests has become more determinative than landlord interest in agriculture.
A significant small owner cultivator mode or petty commodity production has developed in Philippine agriculture employing wage labor. They also deal with merchant capitalist and banks (finance capital). In small landholdings, surplus extraction is no longer a monopoly of the landlord over the peasant. Rather, surplus is extracted by formal or informal creditors, traders and agricultural inputs dealers. In fact, the commodification of subsistence crops paved the way for the dominant role of traders and creditors in surplus extraction.
These features show a combined and uneven development of capitalism rather than a ‘semi-feudal’ mode of production in the rice and corn areas.
In agricultural plantation, sugar, banana and other export crops, the mode of production is organized along capitalist lines, wherein the company or landlords extract not ground rent but profits from wage labor. The same research study mentioned would show this development.
Non-traditonal food crops include banana, tobacco, asparagus, brocolli, cauliflower and others many of which also fall under the classification of high-value crops. Some crops, like banana and pineapple, are traditional exports.
Non-traditional exports undeniably command higher prices than traditional export crops. Even the crisis-ridden banana export industry has a higher return per hectare compared to rice farming.[10]
Of all non-traditional export crops being produced today, asparagus stands out as the highest performer. In the asparagus growing villages of Koronadal and Tupi in South Cotabato, farmers report net earnings of PHP200,000.00 per hectare (Ofreneo, et al, 1994). This figure support more recent studies conducted by the authors. In 1993, the total hectarage for asparagus was estimated to be 863 hectares.
Banana and pineapple are considered major agricultural exports with significant earnings together with sugar, coconut, abaca, tobacco, coffee, etc. Fruits and nuts except for coconut accounted for PHP 6,885,117,000.00 in revenues in 1991. Tobacco, including flue-curing in farms, registered a total PHP 15,355,000.00 in revenues while vegetable production, including root and tuber crops, garnered a total of PHP 11,312,000 in revenues during the same year.
The production of non-traditional export and high-value crops is gaining importance in Philippine agriculture. This is influenced by the present policy environment that gradually puts a premium on the latter than to the production of basic food crops. This environment is explicitly laid down in the blueprint for agricultural development, or the Medium-Term Agricultural Development Plan (MTADP).
Attaining ‘global competitiveness’ and ‘comparative advantage’ by putting land to best use are core concerns and operational principles guiding the MTADP. Based on this, the Department of Agriculture projects a reduction of rice and corn lands to 1.9 million hectares. In this case, 3.1 million hectares would be converted to production of ‘export winners’ namely livestock and commercial crops (DA 1993). This will be approached through the Key Commercial Crops Development Program (KCCDP), which lists banana, papaya, cutflowers, asparagus and crops with ‘potential’ in the world market such as sesame, pimiento, castor beans and essential oils. For this, the DA earmarked some PHP26 billion, 25% of which would come from the private sector.
The switch to ‘high-value’ crops is given impetus by the Ramos administration by enacting a law granting additional incentives to production of asparagus, broccolli, celery, carrots, cauliflower, tomato, bell pepper and others. This according to the government, would liberate farmers from poverty and create more jobs in the countryside. Accordingly, a further boost would be provided by foreign investments on products such as dried/processed fruits, prepared and canned fruits.
It’s quite obvious that there is a growing number of farms that are being organized along capitalist lines, spurred by transnational agribusiness. They grow high value added crops for export. It also gave impetus to landowners to modernize agricultural production causing dislocation among the peasants and sending more people from the countryside to serve as reserve army of labor.
Peasants in capitalist farms and plantations are reduced to wage laborer. The peasants who are dislocated and not absorbed take on all sorts of jobs that come their way, whether agricultural or not, such as masonry, carpentry, hawking, etc.
Our decades of integration and recent experience in the rural areas point to empirical observations that sufficiently outline the main characteristics of the classes in the rural areas as follows:
Majority of the rural population belong to the proletariat and semi-proletariat whose main source of living come primarily from selling their labor power on a regular and/or seasonal basis and whenever occasions for it arise.
Some have land which are either too small and/or has low productivity due to its location and/or lack of capacity for technological improvements. Its produce falls far below the daily requirements of daily living in the present society.
There is a sizable number of middle peasants who are owner-cultivators or tenant peasants. They are able to earn enough from farming to be able to make both ends it. They do not resort to selling their labor power to produce their basic necessities. Some may hire farm hands from time to time to maintain their level of income from their farming.
A much smaller number of rich peasants exist who own productive small farms, are tenant farmers of land owned by landlords or who invest money-capital or agricultural inputs to buy and sell produce of direct tillers. They have varied capacities for technological improvements or investments. They exploit direct tillers by wage labor in the form of direct hiring.
A few number of landlords who directly exploit the tillers of the land mainly by exacting land rent in the form of rent in kind or rent in money form.
Landlords who exact surplus value from the direct tillers mainly by wage-labor and secondarily by the ground rent they get as “owners” of the land.
Landlords who don’t directly exploit the direct tillers but receive rent in the form of money from farmer capitalists who rent the land, usually in the fixed-rent form.
New type of landlord who are able to maintain large tracts of land through legal manipulations extract surplus not through exploitation of tenants but through tie ups with investors and converting their landholdings to equities. The rapid growth of the real estate industry is a glaring example of the fusion of the role of landlords, the State and the capitalists with the latter dictating the rules of the game.
These give rise to the following class contradictions:
contradiction between the landlord class and the peasant class — this is affecting a continuously decreasing number of rural masses due to the differentiation of the peasant class and the bankruptcy or transformation of many landlords to capitalist landlords;
the emergence of a new landlord class
contradiction between the rural proletariat and semi- proletariat, on the one hand, and the foreign monopoly- capitalists, landlord-capitalists, and the rural bourgeoisie on the other — this is affecting majority of the rural toiling masses; and
contradiction between the landlord class and rural bourgeoisie.
Through various forms of struggle, the Filipino workers are marching with their kindred to frustrate the efforts of international monopoly capita in preserving its mechanisms of dominance.
[1] Yearbook of Labor Statistics, 1994
[2] A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, James Putzel, 1994
[3] 1991 Annual Survey of Establishments, Agriculture and Forestry, NCSO 1991
[4] ibid
[5] Computations were based on results of case studies conducted by MODE Inc. in Bukidnon and South Cotabato from March to June 1997.
[6] James Putzel, A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines, 1994
[7] Computation is based on the prevailing market price of PHP8.)) a kilo of palay at the time of the study.
[8] Rice Marketing in Luzon, Philippine Development Studies, Philippine Peasant Institute, 1990
[9] Policy Issues in Rice Marketing, Institute for Policy Studies, UP at Los Baños, 1986
[10] The GATT: Philippine Issues and Perspectives, GATT and the Non-Traditional Export: Global Farming for Whom?, Rene E. Ofreneo; 1996
General Framework:
Both men and women is a partner for total human liberation and development.
Women’s liberation or movement is not dissociating from the struggle of working class and oppressed people.
Women’s movement is not simply a social movement most importantly it must have a class content.
Women’s movement has its own dynamics, program but this does not mean it is parallel to the working class movement. the two movements, however, is intertwined, interrelated and integrated with each other.
The establishment of the organs of political power is not the ultimate objective of our revolutionary struggle but the seizure of political power primarily through developing and strengthening the revolutionary movement and mass struggles.
All our efforts should be concentrated on building, developing and strengthening the revolutionary movement and mass struggles towards the upliftment of the consciousness and organization of the working class and other exploited and oppressed peoples until they are ready to stage a direct revolutionary action of seizing political power. The revolutionary movement and the mass struggles it is pursuing can sustain its development only if it puts in its core a strong and wide movement and struggle of the working class.
The revolutionary movement and its mass struggles will eventually develop and transform into its sharpest form – the armed struggle – to make the decisive action of seizing political power from the hands of the bourgeoisie.
The whole process of developing and strengthening the revolutionary movement and mass struggles will be long and tedious—it is sure to undergo swerves, ebbs and flows. Maintaining and protecting the strengths and gains it has gathered in the course of its struggle should therefore be ensured in order to make use of it in advancing the struggle.
The accumulation of strengths and gains is done with the conception of party units from the womb of organizations/associations/unions of workers and other sectors of society. Likewise, the formation of committees among the advanced elements and the rise of organizations that are basically socialist in orientation.
Our efforts in consolidating the strength we gather in the course of the development of the revolutionary movement and mass struggles should naturally lead to posing a direct challenge and destabilization of the power of the bourgeois reactionary state.
This means that the strength gathered by the revolutionary movement and mass struggles will concretely be manifested not only within the revolutionary mass movement but shall extend and reflect itself in other units/organs. It shall also manifest itself even in the corridors of bourgeois bureaucracy as the situation allows it. All of this however, remain integral and supportive to the revolutionary mass movement.
Pursuant to our reorientation, the organs of political power that we shall build is basically founded on the strength of the revolutionary mass movement and NOT on our armed strength/force.
Building the organs of political power shall be determined by the strength of the revolutionary mass movement and the dominant situation, and in some instances, by our armed strength. Another significant consideration on the matter of building the organs of political power is the electoral struggle which is one of the arenas of our struggle that should be properly engaged and pursued for the advancement of the revolution.
Autonomous or provisional revolutionary governments in domains occupied by minority nationalities or indigenous peoples
This will co-exist with the reactionary subdivisions/units of the reactionary government in the municipal, district, provincial or regional level as determined by the pervading conditions, geography, level of unity and organization of the population and strength of its armed forces.
The reactionary state shall be forced, even by fait accompli, to recognize these organs until the reactionary unit of the government is completely transformed.
Committees or Councils in the sitio, town or municipalities in areas populated by majority Filipinos founded according to and based on the strength of the revolutionary mass movement (consciousness, organization and action).
We should persevere in the task of breaking through and transforming the reactionary units of the government in these areas. However, we should drop the illusion or assumptions that we will be able to completely transform the units/sections of reactionary bureaucracy. This will never be realized under the framework of the reactionary government.
Committees or Councils in communities, factories and schools in the barangay-level.
We should break through and transform the sections/units of the reactionary government in these areas and within the legitimate centers/core of the working class and the people. Aside from the government units, there exist the associations, confederations, board of directors or student councils that we should break through.
While the situation is generally not ripe yet for seizing political power, the overall posture of the organs of political power should not be confrontational.
In sum, the organs of political power are to act according to the laws and existing processes, although the same organs are able to effectively weaken the same reactionary laws and processes. The parameter for this is really on how these acts and movements will serve the highest goal mustered for the welfare and benefit of the working class, as well as the democratic aspirations of the people—their interests, consciousness, organization and actions.
Thus, the stance should be to be active and to disallow compromises on laws, ordinances, policies, and programs that clamp on and make weak (repressive and reformist) the unity and solidarity, organization and movement of the working class and the whole people. Likewise on those steps that are a deprivation of the class and democratic aspirations of the working class and the whole people.
Our long practice and experience in building the organs of political power, in the framework of having an independent armed regime and the PPW strategy, have taught us that the reactionary state can easily destroy and pound to the ground all our attemtps at building the organs of political power for the people if it is not framed and anchored on the general readiness of the people to seize political power.
Our armed forces, according to our re-orientation, shall only play a supplementary or complementary role, depending on the need of the working class and the people to exercise their political power. In the main, this will help pave the way for a barrier-free development of the overall revolutionary movement and of the mass struggles that we are developing.
Based on the development of the revolutionary movement and the mass struggles which are both being determined by the intensification of the class struggle, this can be transformed into its highest form—that is, the armed forces are ultimately for the seizure of political power by the working class and all the oppressed and exploited peoples.
Our work of establishing political power organs has four major objectives:
To ensure that we have collected all the victories and strengths gained by the working class and the people in the course of pushing the revolutionary movement and the mass struggles.
To ensure that the reactionary state is readily challenged and that its strength is effectively eroded, in part to further weaken it for the greater promotion and development of the revolutionary movement and the mass struggles.
To ensure the total preparedness of the working class and all the people in the seizure of political power.
To ensure that even at the earliest part of the revolutionary struggle the working class and the people are being trained effectively in governance.
Struggle for the right to self-determination!
Ang pag-unlad ng kapitalismo sa Pilipinas at sa buong daigdig, sa pangkalahatan, ay hindi pantay. Ang pagsibol ng Pilipinas bilang pambansang estado ay galing sa isang external o panlabas na imposisyon ng kolonyalistang Espanyol at imperyalistang Estados Unidos. Subalit hindi pa dumating ang mga dayuhang mananakop ay may pormasyong pang-estado nang lumitaw ang mga mamamayan. Ito ang gobyernong Sultanato at Timuay.
Nabigyan ng pambansang anyo ang pakikibaka sa panahong pumutok ang armadong pag-aalsa ng katipunan sa pumumuno ni Andres Bonifacio. Ang rebolusyon sa ilalim ng Katipunan sa simula ay konsentrado lamang sa Katagalugan ngunit ang liderato nito ay nakuha ang mga nagsulputang lokal na burgesya (ilustrados) at dito nagsimula ang artikulasyon sa nasyonalismong pilipino at ang pagtayo ng isang Republika. Naitayo ang isang Republika sa ilalim ng dikta ng imperyalistang Amerikano at nagpatupad ng polisiya at programa na kung saan ang umiiral na dominanteng kultura at nasyonalidad ay ang Mayoryang Pilipino.
Nagdulot ng pagkasira at pagkabuwag sa sosyo-kultural at eko-politikal na sistema ng minoryang nasyonalidad dahil sa sapilitang kampanya at programang asimilasyon ng reaksyonaryong estado ng Pilipinas at pagkamkam ng mga imperyalistang bansa sa kanilang likas yaman at rekursos (ancestral domain). Binalewala at sinagasaan ng nasabing estado ang sariling sistema, kultura at antas ng pag-unlad ng mga minoryang nasyonalidad.
Simula nang maitatag ang Republika ng Pilipinas hanggang sa ilalim ng pangkasalukuyang mala-kolonyal at mala-liberal na estado, ang mga programa nitong pinatupad ay hindi nakasagot sa pambansang katanungan ng mga minorya. Sa kabilang panig, Ang programa ng Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) sa ilalim ng pamumuno ni Jose Maria Sison hinggil sa usaping ito ay walang pagkakaiba at sumusunod sa linya at balangkas ng reaksyonaryong estado. Nasa balangkas ng CPP na ang paggigiit ng nasyonalismo at ang pakikibaka tungo sa pambansang kalayaan ay nasa kamay lamang ng Mayoryang Pilipino. Malinaw na hindi kinikilala ng isang Maoista at Stalinistang Partido ang minoryang nasyonalidad at ang mga partikularidad at pekyularidad nito.
Ang ganitong balangkas ay hubarang nagsasabi na ang mamamayang Moro at ibang minoryang nasyonalidad (Lumad, Cordillera) ay walang pambansang identidad at walang kakayahan na maglunsad ng pambansang rebolusyon. Wala rin itong kaibahan sa Cultural Revolution ni Mao Tse Tung na pinapababa ang pagtingin sa mga pambansang minorya bilang isang purely cultural minorities o special concerns lamang (PSR). Parehong inalisan ng reaksyonaryong estado at CPP ang minoryang inaapi ng karapatan na magtayo ng sariling estado o bansa.
Parehong nagpapatupad ang reaksyonaryong estado at CPP ng isang polisiyang One Nation, One State at One People sa kabila ng reyalidad na ang Pilipinas ay nahahati sa ibat-ibang mga nasyonalidad. Batay rito hindi uubra ang ganitong polisiya sa isang lipunan na may multi-nationalities, multi-states (tri-people) na katayuan. Ibat-ibang nasyonalidad o multi-nationalities na may partikularidad at pekyularidad sa sistemang pulitika, ekonomiya at kultura. Mga nasyonalidad na may sariling dinaanang kasaysayan at antas ng pag-unlad. Dahil dito, hindi maaaring ipilit na ipahari ng isang burgesya o Partido ang kanyang sistema o polisiya sa ibang mga nasyonalidad sa Pilipinas na hindi makonsidera ang ethnic at clannish na katayuan nito at ang partikularidad at pekyularidad ng kanilang socio-cultural at political structures.
Malinaw na ang basehan ng pambansang katanungan ay ang patuloy na pang-aapi at pagsasamantala sa mga mamamayan. Malinaw rin na ang nasabing pang-aapi ay lalong pinaigting sa loob ng sistemang kapitalismo. Naniniwala ang RPM na hanggang mananatili ang pang-aapi sa mamamayan ay walang mangyayaring kasagutan sa Pambansang Katanungan. Kung hindi ito maresolba, magpapatuloy ang pakikibaka ng minoryang nasyonalidad tungo sa pagkamit ng tunay na kalayaan at kapayapaan. Kinakailangan na ang programa ng Partido ay tutugon sa pagbura sa lahat ng porma ng pang-aapi at pagsasamantala upang masagot ang pambansang katanungan ng mga inaaping mamamayan.
Sa Marxist point of view, dinidiin at binibigyan ng mahalagang papel ang ekonomiya bilang dahilan sa pagkawala (abolition) ng mga pambansang katanungan. Karugtong nito, tinitingnan ni Marx na ang pag-unlad ng sistemang kapitalismo ang siyang dahilan sa pagsibol ng pambansang estado. Tinitingnan ri ni Marx na ang pagkawala ng estado at uri na kung saan ekspresyon ng pang-aapi at pagsasamantala ay ang pagkawala ng pambansang katanungan.
Sa konteksto ng Pilipinas partikular sa lipunan ng mamamayang Moro at Lumad, ang pag-unlad ng lipunan at ang transpormasyon nito sa isang yugto patungo sa isang yugto ay hindi pa ganap. Naging mestiso ang takbo ng pag-unlad sa Pilipinas. Hindi pa buong ganap ang pag-unlad ng sistemang pyudalismo, at hindi pa naging ganap ito, pumasok kaagad ang kapitalismo na inimposa ng mga dayuhang mananakop. Hanggang ngayon ay nananatili pa ang impluwensya ng sistemang komunal, alipin at pyudal sa lipunan ng pambansang minorya. Samakatuwid, ang modo ng produksyon na umiiral sa lipunan ng pambansang minorya ay multi-mode na may malakas na impluwensyang kapitalismo.
Sa lipunan ng mamamayang Moro at iba pang minorya, malakas ang clan consciousness at clan contradictions kaysa class. Malaki ang clan factor sa pagbabago at pag-unlad ng kanilang lipunan. Sa ganitong objective realities ang Partido ay nagbigay ng malaking konsiderasyon sa clan at ethnic approach sa pag-AOM (arouse, organize, mobilize) sa kanilang hanay.
Dahil sa bagong objective realities partikular sa pag-igting ng impluwensya ng sistemang kapitalismo sa loob ng kanilang lipunan, unti-unting sumibol ang class consciousness lalung-lalo na sa mamamayang Moro na malaki ang bilang sa nagiging mga kapitalistang panginoong maylupa, traders at burgesyang komprador kung ihahambing sa Lumad.
Ang tingin ng RPM, ang class contradiction sa loob ng sistemang kapitalismo ay may malaking kontribusyon sa pag-igting ng clan contradiction sa loob ng lipunang Moro at Katutubo. Ang tunggalian ng clan ay extension ng tunggalian ng uri sa pagitan ng nang-aapi at inaapi sa loob ng Pilipinas. Tinitingnan ng Partido na ang pag-igting ng clan at class contradictions ay dulot ng malawakang opensiba ng sistemang kapitalismo sa Pilipinas at sa buong daigdig. Kailangan dito ang mahigpit na kombinasyon ng clan at class approach sa pag-AOM sa kanila laban sa kapitalismo.
Ang usaping Pambansang Katanungan ay hindi lamang nakalimita sa usapin ng pakikibaka ng minoryang nasyonalidad laban sa pambansang pang-aapi ng reaksyonaryong estado at imperyalista. Samakatuwid sa loob mismo ng minoryang nasyonalidad ay may malaki at mahalagang usaping pambansang katanungan. Sa loob ng nasabing lipunan ay may elemento ng pang-aapi at pagsasamantala ng dominanteng tribo laban sa minoryang tribo, malalaking clan laban sa maliliit. Ang ibig sabihin, hindi magwawakas ang usaping pambansang katanungan kahit matapos at manalo na ang minoryang nasyonalidad sa kanilang pakikibaka laban sa reaksyonaryong estado at imperyalista. May pambansang katanungan pa itong sasagutin sa loob mismo ng kanyang lipunan.
Sa maraming karanasan ng komprontasyon na dinaanan ng mga Moro at ibang nasyonalidad na nagsimula pa noong Spanish at American colonization at sa kanilang direktang pakikibaka laban sa mga Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) at Transnational Corporations (TNCs) na kumikilos sa loob ng kanilang komunidad, madali nitong maunawaan na ang paglala ng pambansang pang-aapi ay dulot ng sistemang kapitalismo. Dahil sa kanilang mayamang karanasan, madali nitong maintindihan ang diyalektong relasyon ng pambansang pang-aapi sa kabuktutan ng kapitalismo.
Madali na nilang mai-ugnay ang pagkawala at pagkasira ng ancestral domain doon sa kapitalismo. Hindi na mahirapan ang Partido sa pagpapaintidi sa kanila kung sino at anong pwersa ang sumusira sa kanilang pamumuhay at kinabukasan at kung bakit at paano ito nasira at nawala. Sa ganitong sitwasyon, ang papel ng Partido ay ang pagtulong kung paano masistematisa at mapatalas o mahasa ang kanilang ideolohiya at estratehiya sa pakikibaka laban sa burgesya at kapitalistang sistema.
Ang pakikibaka ng pambansang minorya ay hindi lamang nakatuon sa lokal at pambansang burgesya. Ito’y direktang nakatutok laban sa mga dayuhang kapitalista at imperyalista. Ang kanilang pakikibaka ay indirekta at direktang tumutugon sa pagpapahina sa pambansa at internasyonal na burgesya. Malinaw na may internasyonalismong laman ang kanilang pakikibaka. Ang mamamayang Moro at ibang minoryang nasyonalidad ay hindi lamang nananawagan ng pambansang kalayaan, higit sa lahat, nananawagan ito ng pandaigdigang kalayaan at kapayapaan.
Sa ganitong balangkas, ang posisyon ng RPM ay lubusang susuporta at makikiisa sa kanilang pakikibaka. Ang pakikibakang ito ay may diyalektikong relasyon sa internasyonalismong pakikibaka ng proletaryado. Ang programang ito ay sumasang-ayon o affirmation sa estratehikong panawagan ng Second International na ‘all workers and oppressed peoples in the world unite.’
Malinaw na hindi kaiba ang problema na kinakaharap ng mga mangagawa at iba pang uri sa lipunan sa pundamental o pangunahing problema na kinakaharap ng mamamayang Moro at Katutubo. Walang pag-alinlangan ang Partido sa pag-susuporta sa kanila. At aktibong lalahok ang Partido sa pakikibaka laban sa pambansang pang-aapi ng inaaping mamamayan sa sariling pagpapasya habang puspusang nakikibaka laban sa kapitalismo at pinapanday ang proletaryadong internasyonalismo. Batay ito, nilinaw ni Lenin ang diyalektikong relasyon sa pagitan ng internasyonalismo at ang karapatan sa sariling pagpapasya. Naninindigan ang Partido na ang demokratikong pakikibaka ng minoryang nasyonalidad ay karugtong at bahagi ng sosyalistang pakikibaka ng proletaryado. Hindi natin simpleng ikahon na ito’y tuwirang hiwalay sa pambansa at demokratikong pakikibaka doon sa sosyalistang pakikibaka. Hindi simpleng sabihin na ang demokratikong rebolusyon ng mga inaaping mamamayan ay isang burges na rebolusyon. Hindi ito nakalagay sa isang laboratoryo na tatapusin muna natin ang pambansa at demokratikong rebolusyon bago umpisahan ang isang sosyalistang rebolusyon. Ang rebolusyon ng minoryang nasyonalidad ay may progresibo at sosyalistang elemento.
Sa usaping kultura at sistemang hustisya ng minoryang nasyonalidad, kikilalanin ito ng Partido. Ang demokratiko at sosyalistang elemento ng kanilang kultura (halimbawa, pagtatrabaho ng kolektibo, pakikibaka sa mga mapang-aping uri, swift justice) ay paunlarin at iugnay sa international culture at justice system ng proletaryado.
Ang usaping ancestral domain ay nasa pangangalaga at pamumuno ng kanilang Council of Elders. Malinaw sa praktis ng mga katutubo na ang lupa ay nasa balangkas ng collective ownership. Sila ay may mataas at mayamang karanasan sa usaping communal ownership of production. Tutulungan ng Partido na mapa-angat sa siyentipiko at rebolusyonaryong antas ang kanilang praktis hinggil dito.
Maliban dito, isa rin sa mahalagang usapin ang Governance. Sa loob ng lipunang Moro, humigit kumulang, ay mayroong 13 ethno-linguistic groupings na may ibat-ibang antas ng political governance. Ang pinaka-dominante rito ay nabibilang sa tatlo: ang Sultanato sa Maguindanaw, Sultanato sa Sulu at ang Pat A Pangapong Ko Ranaw. Ang tatlo ay autonomous sa isat isa at pederal ang tipo ng kanilang original na gobyerno.
Samantala, sa hanay ng mamamayang Lumad, humigit kumulang ay mayroong 18 major ethno-linguistic groupings. Katulad ng Moro, may sarili rin itong political structure. Ang pinaka-dominante rito ay Timuay Government. Ito ay autonomous mula sa isat isa at may katangiang pederal.
Dagdag dito, ang kahilingan ng Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) na magtayo ng isang Islamic State sa Mindanao. Katulad ng gobyernong Sultanato at Timuay, ito’y kikilalanin at susuportahan ng Partido na kabahagi sa pagpapasya sa sarili.
Ang lahat ng progresibo at rebolusyonaryong gobyerno ng mamamayang Moro, ibang minoridad nasyonalidad at inaaping Pilipino ay malakas na susuportahan ng Partido, kabilang ang usaping patatayo ng isang pedserasyon o pederasyon ng gobyerno sa hanay ng tatlong mamamayan. Ngunit ang pagpapasya mismo nito ay nasa kamay pa rin ng mga mamamayan.
Ang estratehiya ng Partido ay palakasin ang pakikibaka sa sariling pagpapasya ng mga minoryang nasyonalidad, iugnay ito sa pambansa at demokratikong rebolusyon ng buong mamamayan at palakasin ang internasyonalistang pakikibaka ng mga proletaryado para mabilisang maitumba ang burgesya at imperyalista. Ang labanan dito ng prolet at kapitalista ay hindi lang makikita sa pambansa at pandaigdigang labanan kundi sa labanan na nag-uumpisa sa lokal na antas. Ibig sabihin, susuportahan at sasama ang Partido sa pakikibaka ng mga minoryang nasyonalidad laban sa mga kapitalistang panginoong maylupa, kartel at mga dayuhang korporasyon (TNCs, MNCs) na kumo-kontrol sa kanilang lupa o ancestral domain.
Ang pinaka-layunin ng rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka ng mamamayang Moro, Lumad, Cordillera at inaaping Pilipino ay wakasan ang lahat ng pambansang pang-aapi at pagsasamantala. Buong makakamtan ng mamamayang inaapi ang tunay na kalayaan at demokrasya sa pamamagitan ng pagkamit sa kanilang Right to Self-Determination (RSD).
Samakatuwid, ang pakikibakang ito ay sasagot sa mga pambansang katanungan. Ang pambansang katanungan ay isang tanong sa pagsagot sa mahahalagang mga problema sa pag-unlad, pag-alis ng pambansang pang-aapi, pag-alis ng mga balakid, sa pagtatayo ng mga bansa at pagseguro sa kalayaan, kaunlaran ng mga mamamayan kasama na ang pagkamit ng tunay na kalayaan at internasyonalismo sa loob ng mga pambansang relasyon.
Ang RPM ay naniniwala na hindi matatapos ang pagsagot sa pambansang katanungan hanggat mananatili pa ang usaping estado, uri at clan sa lipunan ng mamamayang Moro, Cordillera, Lumad at Pilipino. Kahit na papasok ang proletaryado sa isang sosyalistang rebolusyon at onstruksyon, hanggat hindi pa nasasagot ang pambansang katanungan, patuloy pa rin ang pagsuporta ng Partido sa pakikibaka tungo sa Right to Self-Determination ng nasabing mga mamamayan.
Kahit na mananalo at matatapos ang demokratiko at sosyalistang rebolusyon, hindi awtomatikong matatapos na rin ang problema ng pambansang pang-aapi at pagsasamantala. Hanggang buhay at mananatili pa ang materyal na basehan ng pambansang katanungan — solidang magpapatuloy ang pakikibaka ng Partido sa pambansang pang-aapi sa ilalim ng kahit ano mang sistema na maabot ng lipunan.
Ang katangiang politikal at kilusan ng pambansang kalayaan ay democratic at anti-imperialist struggle. Subalit ito ay mahigit na naka-ugnay sa proletaryadong pakikibaka at tutungo ito (ang pambansang pakikibaka) sa isang sosyalistang pakikibaka. Sa framework ng Partido, ang dalawang ito ay magkaugnay at inter-related sa isat isa. Ang kapanalunan ng pambansang pakikibaka ng inaaping mamamayan ay kapanalunan rin ng pakikibakang prolet at vice-versa. Ang paghihina sa komon ng kaaway, ang kapitalismo, ay interrelated at interconnected na trabaho ng dalawang nabanggit na magkaugnay na pakikibaka.
May panlipunanng responsibilidad ang Partido na suportahan ang lahat ng mamamayan, grupo o uring inaapi, ito ang prinsipyong hinahawakan ng Partido. Hindi pwedeng ihiwalay ng prolet ang kanyang pakikibaka mula sa pambansang pakikibaka at kahit panlipunang kilusan. Pinapakita ng Partido na ang pangkabuohang pakikibaka ng masa ay tutungo sa isang sosyalistang progreso na isa sa pinakamahalagang tutungihin ng proletaryadong pakikibaka.
Ang pambansang pakikibaka tungo sa pagkamit ng tunay na kalayaan ay isang politikal at ideolohikal na usapin ng pambansang katanungan. Ang pakikibaka sa pambansang kalayaan ay pakikibaka ng impluwensya sa pagitan ng burgesya at proletaryado. Ayon kay Marx, sa pag-unlad ng bansa at ng daigdig may malaking implikasyon at impluwensya ang maka-uring mga dahila sa pag-unlad ng proletaryadong internasyonalismo.
Sa balangkas na ito, hindi pwedeng pabayaan ng Partido ang pambansang pakikibaka at RSD ng mga inaaping mamamayan. Hindi pwedeng ibigay ng Partido sa burgesya ang nasabing pakikibaka at hayaan na ito sa kanila. Ang labanan sa pagitan ng proletaryado at burgesya ay hindi nagsimula sa sosyalistang rebolusyon, nagsimula ito sa demokratiko at anti-imperyalistang pakikibaka ng minoryang nasyonalidad at inaaping mayorya.
Ang dalawang nabanggit na pakikibaka ay kailangan panghawakan ng Partido bilang parehong mahalaga. Malinaw na ang tuntungan sa pagpapa-abante at pagpapa-unlad ng internasyonalismo ay nasyonalismo. Ngunit dapat malinaw rin sa Partido na ang kanyang pangunahing pupuntahan ay ang pagpapa-abante sa internasyonalismo.
Ngunit hindi sa lahat ng panahon ay susuportahan ng Partido ang mga pambansang pakikibaka. Malinaw na hindi susuportahan ng Partido ang pambansang pakikibaka na kontra-rebolusyon at pinapangunahan ng mga mapang-api at imperyalistang pwersa.
Sa sumada, ang inaaping mamamayan ay may dalawa, ngunit magka-ugnay, na demokratiko at sosyalistang kahilingan. Ang usaping LUPA at socialization of means and ownership of production.
Ang usaping repormang agraryo ay hindi lamang nakatali sa land distribution. It ay hanggang land development. Usapin ito ng genuine implementation ng repormang agraryo tungo sa isang tunay at peoples-based industrialization. Nasa balangkas ito na ang pagpapa-unlad ng agrikultura ay pagpapa-unlad ng industriya at vice-versa. Isang agricultural and industrial development na hindi makakasira ng kalikasan.
Isa sa pinakamahalaga sa usaping demokratiko at sosyalistang kahilingan ay ang socialization ng ownership of production at pagpapa-unlad ng means and forces of production. Usapin rin ito kung papaano maitransporma ang indibidwal at private farms papuntang collective farms. Ang kahilingang ito’y hindi kumpletong mareyalisa o mamateryalisa hanggat mananatili pang hawak at kontrolado ng naghaharing-uri ang means of production.
Ang pag-angkin at pagbawi muli sa ancestral domain ng minoryang nasyonalidad ay tuwirang naka-ugnay sa paghawak ng politikal na kapangyarihan. Ang ancestral domain ay ubod-laman ng kanilang pakikibaka tungo sa karapatan sa sariling pagpapasya. Ito ang expression ng kanilang buhay at kinabukasan. Ito ang tinutungtungan ng kanilang politikal na kapangyarihan. Kailangan kumpletong mapalaya ang minoryang nasyonalidad mula sa kontrol at pang-aapi ng burgesya at sistemang kapitalismo. Sa pamamagitan lamang nito (pagpapalaya sa kanila) makakamtan ng minoryang nasyonalidad ang kanilang demokratiko at sosyalistang kahilingan.
Subalit ang usaping RSD ay hindi lang usapin ng ekonomiya at kultura. Higit sa lahat, usapin ito ng politika. Kinikilala ng Partido ang kanilang karapatan sa pagbubuo ng isang estado, asosasyon o pederasyon kahit na sa antas ng paghihiwalay (secession). Dito nilinaw ni Lenin, na ang pagbubuo at hindi pagbubuo ng sariling pambansang estado ay saklaw ng kanilang karapatan. Ang usaping ito ay nasa kanilang kamay mismo. Ang tungkulin ng Partido ay tulungan silang mapaabante ang kanilang pakikibakang RSD tungo sa pagkamit ng tunay na kalayaan at demokrasya.
Ang kagyat at pangunahing gawain ng Partido sa pambansang pakikibaka ng mga minoryang nasyonalidad at inaaping mayorya ay ang mga sumusunod:
Ipaangat ang antas ng kanilang pakikibakang RSD sa pamamagitan ng pagpapatalas ng kanilang ideolohiya at estratehiya sa pakikibaka laban sa pambansa at internasyonal na burgesya at naghaharing uri;
Palakasin ang kanilang kampanya tungo sa pag-angkin, pagbawi ng lupa at pagpapatupad ng repormang agraryo. Sasamahan at gagabayan ito ng Partido sa pamamagitan ng konkretong praktika nito. Mapakita sa kanila na ang siyentipiko at kolektibong pagpapatakbo ng lupa at socialized ownership of production ang siyang pinaka-abanteng pamamaraan tungo sa isang maunlad at progresibong lipunan;
Ipaangat sa rebolusyonaryo at siyentipikong antas ang kanilang socio-political structure at justice system;
Palakasin at konsolidahin ang kanilang kapasidad na mamuno at magpatakbo sa kanilang sariling organs of political power at ang pagpapaunlad nito. Bahagi ng kanyang konsolidasyon ay ang pagbubuo ng mga sanga at komitiba ng Partido sa loob ng kanilang gobyerno, ugmos at armadong pwersa;
At ang pag-ugnay at pag-iisa sa pakikibaka ng pambansang minorya at inaaping mayorya sa pakikibaka ng mga manggagawa at iba pang inaaping uri at grupo ng lipunan laban sa mapang-aping sistema ng kapitalismo.
[These following items seem to be endnotes, but these items do not appear to be mapped in the body of the text. ~MIA]
Resulta ng Unang Moro Right to Self-Determination Conference noong 1994, Mindanao, Philippines.
Sub-Mindanao Regional Committee Document, ‘On Council of Elders’ Approach — Lumad Context: Isang Oryentasyon,’ 1993.
Victor ruelan, ‘Ang Kasinatian sa Pag-oorganisa sa Hanay ng Katawhang Moro ug Lumad,’ 1997.
Paper ng ‘On National Question’ ng Mindanao Region sa Unang Revised Basic Party Course na inilunsad ng Peoples’ Communist Party (PCP) noong Agosto 1997.
Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, Progress Publisher, 1964, p. 288.
V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 20, Progress Publisher, Moscow, 1966, pp. 24–25.
Ibid., p.238.
Jose Maria Sison, ‘The Philippine Revolution and the National Question,’ International Network for Philippine Studies, February 15, 1996, p.8
Ang mga ideya at kahilingan para sa pulitikal na kalayaan ay umunlad sa panahon ng kapitalismo. Ito ay nag-umpisang umusbong mula sa sinapupunan ng naghihingalong lipunang pyudal. Ang pagsulong ng kalakan at komersyo at ang pag-unlad ng mga sentrong urban sa huling bahagi ng Middle Ages hanggang sa panahon ng Renaissance ay nagbigay-daan para sa pangangailangan ng mas sentralisadong kaayusan bilang reaksyon sa pagkakahati-hati at mga alitan na kaakibat ng nabubulok na sistemang pyudal na kinatatampukan ng pagkakanya-kanyang teritoryo at labanan ng mga monarkiya o kaharian. Ang papalakas na uring kapitalista na nakilala bilang burgesya ay nakipaglaban para sa pampulitikang paghahari. Ibinabandila nila ang panawagan para sa pampulitikang kalayaan mula sa pampulitikang kontrol ng simbahan, ang natitirang institusyong nagbubuklod sa naaagnas na pyudalismo.
Naganap ang mga pulitikal at rebolusyonaryong aksyon na malawakang nilahukan ng mga magsasaka (serfs/timawa) laban sa maraming mga monarkiya o kaharian sa Europa. Nagkahugis o nabuo ang representatibong demokrasya na binulag ang mga inaaping at pinagsasamantalahang masa na ang kanilang interes ay maisusulong at madadala sa gobyerno. Trinansporma ng mga monarkiya ang kanilang sarili, katulad ng sa Britaniya, papunta sa monarkiyang konstitusyonal upang mabuhay. Ang mga prinsipyo ng pagkapantay-pantay, indibidwal na kalayaan at karapatang bumoto ay ginawang simbolo ng burges-demokratikong sistema.
Ang kalayaan sa pagboto at eleksyon ay naging pangangailangan o kailangang ehersisyo kung saan ang kapangyarihan ng mamamayan na bumoto at ‘piliin’ ang kanilang kinatawan ay dapat na nagaganap.
Gayunpaman, ang burges-demokratikong estado ay di-kailanman naging tunay na boses at paghahari ng nakakaraming mahihirap. Instrumento ito ng makauring paghahari ng burgesya. Ang mga elektibong posisyon ay mino-monopolisa kundi man kontrolado nila o ng kanilang piling kinatawan. Ang mga batas ay nalikha para proteksyunan at itaguyod ang kanilang interes. Ang pagkakapantay-pantay at indibidwal na kalayaan, kung ganoon, ay nananatiling karapatan ng mga mayayaman at prebilihiyadong uri.
Matalas na nakita ni Marx ang ganitong katotohanan mula sa karanasan ng Paris Commune, na pinagyaman pa lalo ni Lenin sa kanyang paglilinaw sa pangangailangan ng makauring proletaryadong pakikibaka para maisakatuparan ang tunay na demokrasya para sa mahihirap. Sabi niya: ‘Pero mula sa demokratikong kapitalista — na di-maiiwasang makipot ang saklaw at mapanlinlang na nagsasantabi sa mga mahihirap, kung kayat sagad-sagaring ipokrito at mapanlinlang — ang pag-unlad ay di sumusulong nang simple, direkta at maayos patungo sa ‘papalaki at papaunlad na demokrasya’ tulad ng inilalako ng mga oportunistang peti-burgesya.’
Ang masa ay dapat na matuto mula sa kanilang sariling karanasan na kinakailangang palitan ang demokratikong burges ng tunay na demokrasya — ang paghahari ng mayorya na walang iba kundi sila mismo, ang masang nagbabanat ng buto. Tungkulin ng abanteng destakamento na bigyang edukasyon, organisahin at mobilisahin ang masa para lumaban para sa kanilang tunay na boses at interes sa pamamahala. Sa pamamagitan ng ganitong proseso, ang masa ng uring manggagawa ay nabibigyan ng rebolusyonaryong paghahanda para sa pag-agaw ng kapangyarihang pang-estado at pagtatayo ng sosyalismo.
Pinakamahalaga sa abanteng destakamento ng uring manggagawa ang matalas na pagkuha sa timpla at pakiramdam ng masa at itakda ang tamang taktika at porma ng pakikibaka na pinakamahusay na magsusulong sa kanilang rebolusyonaryong interes sa bawat sitwasyon at balanse ng pwersa. Ito ang esensya ng Marxista-Leninistang pampulitikang pamumuno. Sabi ni Lenin: ‘Ang kasaysayan sa kabuuan, at ang kasaysayan ng mga rebolusyon sa partikular, ay laging mas mayaman sa laman, mas naiiba, mas maraming porma, mas buhay at mapanlikha kaysa sa iniisip ng kahit na mga pinaka-abanteng makauring mag-isip na destakamento ng pinakamaunlad na uri.
May dalawang konklusyong makukuha mula rito: una, upang maisagawa ang tungkulin, ang rebolusyonaryong uri ay dapat maging dalubhasa sa lahat ng porma at aspeto ng panlipunang aktibidad nang walang pagtatangi; pangalawa, na ang rebolusyonaryong uri ay dapat handa sa mga pinakamabilis at pinaka-radikal na pagpapalit mula sa isang porma tungo sa isa pa”
Ang parliamentarismo ay isang legal na porma ng pakikibaka na tinuran ni Lenin bilang isang mababang porma ng pakikibaka na kailangan sa sitwasyong ang pwersa ng reaksyon ay malakas. Sabi niya: “kapag talagang naroon ang kondisyon ng malala at papatinding reaksyon, kung ang mekanikal na puwersa ng reaksyong ito ay talagang pumuputol sa pakikipag-ugnayan sa masa, nagpapahirap sa malawak na gawain at nagpapahina sa partido, kung ganoon, tungkulin ng partido ang pagpapaka-dalubhasa sa parlamentaryong sandata sa pakikibaka’hindi sa dahilang mas mataas na porma ang parlamentaryong pakikibaka kaysa sa iba pang porma’ito’y dahil lang sa mas mababa ito sa kayang akitin papunta sa kilusang masa kahit ang mga armadong pwersa na magluluwal ng welgang masa at mga pag-aalsa.
Dahil habang mas malakas ang mekanikal na pwersa ng reaksyon, at habang mas mahina ang ugnayan sa masa, mas kagyat na tungkulin na ihanda ang isipan ng masa (hindi ang direktang aksyon), mas nagiging kagyat ang paggamit ng pamamaraang propaganda at ahitasyong nililikha ng lumang rehimen.’
Binigyan diin ito sa panahong mahalaga para sa RSD Democrats na gamitin ang Black Hundred Octobrist Duma para sa rebolusyonaryong propaganda para ihanda ang masa at ipreserba ang partido sa panahon na walang rebolusyonaryong krisis. Panahon ito kung saan ang rebolusyonaryo at progresibong pwersa ay nahaharap sa bagsik at lagim na pinakawalan ng gangster na Black Hundred na sumusuporta sa tsaristang gubyerno.
Dagdag pa, nuong 1920, nang ang sosyalistang rebolusyonaryong Ruso ay naipanalo na, at inilinaw ni Lenin ang teorya ng proletaryong rebolusyon, naglunsad siya ng tunggaliang pang-ideolohiya laban sa di-Marxistang taktika ng ‘Left-wing communists’ sa pandaigdigang kilusang komunista na tumitingin sa parlamentarismo bilang repormismo.
Inilinaw niya ang pangangailangang gumamit ng parlamentaryong anyo ng pakikibaka sa mga bansang walang tunay na rebolusyong proletaryo upang isulong ang sosyalistang adhikain. Ani ni Lenin: ‘Walang makikipagtalo na ang hukbong hindi nagsanay sa paggamit ng lahat ng sandata, sa lahat ng paraan ng pakikidigma na alam ng kaaway ay gawaing mali, palpak o kriminal pa. Mas totoo at aplikable ito sa larangan ng pulitika kaysa sa sining gyera. Sa pulitika, mas mahirap malaman ang angkop na taktikang gagamitin sa hinaharap na papabor sa atin. Hanggat di natin natututunan ang paggamit ng lahat ng pamamaraan sa pakikibaka, maari tayong makaranas ng grabe o kahit mapagpasyang pagkatalo. Kung ang mga pagbabago sa posisyon ng mga uri na di natin kontrolado ay nagpatampok ng porma ng labanang mahina tayo’Ang mga bagitong rebolusyonaryo ang kadalasang nag-iisip na ang mga legal na paraan ng pakikibaka ay oportunista dahil sa larangang ito, palaging nalilinlang at nauuto ng burgesya ang mga manggagawa, samantalang ang iligal na paraan ng pakikibaka ay rebolusyonaryo.
Gayunman, mali ito. Hindi mahirap maging rebolusyonaryo kung ang lahat ng tao ay sumasali sa rebolusyon dahil nadadala sila ng damdamin, dahil ito ang uso, o dahil sa mga kareristang motibo. Mas mahirap at mas malayong mahalaga’ang maging rebolusyonaryo kung ang mga kondisyon para sa direkta, hayag at tunay na pangmasa at rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka ay di pa lumilitaw; ang maging kampeon ng interes ng rebolusyon’sa mga institusyong di-rebolusyonaryo at reaksyunaryo, ang pagtatrabaho sa masa ng mamamayang di pa kayang kagyat na pahalagahan ang pangangailangan ng rebolusyonaryong pamamaraan ng pagkilos.
Gayunman, pinag-iiba ng Leninismo ang paggamit ng legal na porma ng pakikibaka tulad ng gawaing parlamentaryo sa purong legalismo. Habang ang legalismo ay nagtuturing na ang legal na gawain ang mismong layunin, ang mga taktikang paggamit ng legal na porma ng pakikibaka ay para sa pagkamit ng mga ispisipikong rebolusyonayong layunin, na siya namang magsusulong ng rebolusyonaryong pakikibaka.
Ang parlamentarismo ay isang porma ng pakikibakang nasa kabang-yaman ng karanasan ng mga rebolusyonaryong proletaryado sa pagsusulong ng kanilang istorikal na misyong palayain ang proletaryado mula sa pagsasamantala at pang-aapi ng kapitalismo. Nangangahulugan ito ng paglahok sa mga representatibong institusyon ng gubyerno na pinaunlad ng burges-demokratikong sistemang pulitikal ng kapitalistang lipunan.
Gayunpaman, dahil sa pagkaalam sa mga panganib ng ganitong anyo ng pakikipaglaban, malinaw na itinakda ng leninismo ang parametro ng rebolusyonaryo sa paglahok sa gawaing parlamentaryo. Ang karerismo at oportunismo ang dalawang pagkakamali na dapat bantayan dahil ang gawaing ito ay maglalapit sa maraming oportunidad na magpapatingkad sa indibidwalismo at mga impluwensyang burges. Ang pagpapanalo sa pwesto ay di dapat maging tanging layunin kundi isang paraan lang upang magawa ang rebolusyonaryong gawaing pagmumulat at pag-oorganisa ng masa tungo sa sosyalismo.
‘Ang mga komunista ay dapat na matutong lumikha ng bago, naiiba, di-oportunista, at di-kareristang parlamentarismo. Ang mga komunista ay dapat maglabas ng kanilang mga islogan; ang mga tunay na proletaryado, sa tulong ng mga di-organisado at inaaping maralita ‘ay dapat na magsalita para sa mamamayan’ dapat na kahit saan ay papag-isipin ang mga tao, at himukin ang masa sa pakikibaka sa larangan at daigdig ng burgesya at gamitin ang makinaryang kanyang itinayo.’
Ang ating kasaysayan sa ilalim ng bulgarisadong Maoistang linya ng liderato ng CPP ay puno ng mga malulubhang pagkakamali sa praktikal na aplikasyon ng Marxista-Leninistang prinsipyo sa pampulitikang pamumuno. Ang paggamit ng mga porma ng pakikibaka ay nahumaling sa istratehiyang matagalang digmang bayan. Ang mga legal na porma ng pakikibaka ay hindi (nabigyang halaga) at napag-aralan batay sa kanilang kawastuhan sa kasalukuyang umiiral na balanse ng pwersa at kalagayan ng mga rebolusyonaryong pwersa. Sa halip, ang mga ito’y permanenteng tinitingnan bilang mga sekundaryong porma na dapat magsilbi sa pagsusulong ng digmang bayan na pangunahing inilulunsad sa kanayunan, habang ang armadong pakikibaka ay itinakdang pangunahing pwersa.
Ang gawaing parlamentaryo at ang paglahok sa eleksyon ay itinuturing na repormismo. Hindi kataka-taka kung ganuon na dahil sa ginawang paggigiit ng panrehiyong organisasyon ng partido sa MR na isulong ang sariling taktika ng paglahok sa eleksyon ng 1978 Batasang Pambansa ay pinatawan ang pamunuan nito ng matinding pang-organisasyong disiplina. Sa kabilang banda, ang engrandeng partisipasyon ng inorganisa ng partido na Partido ng Bayan nuong eleksyon ng 1987 pagkatapos ng pag-aalsang Edsa na nagpabagsak sa diktadura at nagluklok sa popular na gubyernong Aquino ay mas resulta ng kalituhan kung paano isusulong ang PPW tungo sa tagumpay. Hindi ito desisyong bunga ng seryosong pagkadiskubre/pagkaalam sa papel at halaga ng legal at parlamentaryong porma ng pakikibaka. Nagresulta ito ng kalituhan sa mga layunin at kondukta sa pagsusulong ng ganitong gawain.
Dahil dito, ang resulta, walang nakamit na solidong ganansya/ tagumpay para sa pagsusulong ng rebolusyon. Ang mga kakarampot na nanalo sa eleksyon ay nabigong dalhin at isulong ang interes ng inaapi at pinagsasamantalahang masa. Ang mga sumunod na pagtatangkang patibayin ang partidong elektoral nuong 1991 ay nabuhusan at nasagasaan na ng sumusulpot na debate sa linya at taktika ng Partido.
Sa mga kamalian at problema sa pamumuno ng CPP, ang rebolusyonaryong pwersa ay nabigong magpaunlad ng kasanayan at labas sa gawaing parliamentaryo at pakikibakang elektoral. Ang mga pagsisikap ng mga kadre at kasapi ng partido, mga alyado at kaibigan at ang mga resources na ginamit sa pagtatangkang lumahok sa gawaing parlamentaryo ay pawang nasayang.
Ang globalisasyon at ang namumuong pandaigdigang oposisyon sa epekto nitong malalang kahirapan at panlipunang inhustisya ay malinaw na palatandaan ng patuloy na papatinding krisis ng pandaigdigang sistemang kapitalista. Ang masa higit kailanman ay nagdurusa mula sa kapitalistang pagsasamantala at pang-aapi. Dumaranas sila ng kawalan ng trabaho, kontraktwalisasyon, pagtaas ng halaga ng pamumuhay, at kakulangan ng suporta at serbisyong panlipunan mula sa pamahalaan. Ang pagnanais ng masa para sa pagbabago upang maibsan ang kahirapan at magkaroon sila ng mahusay na pamumuhay ay higit na matindi ngayon.
Gayunman, ang mababang antas ng organisasyon at kamalayan ng masa at ng uring manggagawa na nakikita sa kawalan ng malakas at militanteng kilusang manggagawa sa bansa ay nagpapatunay ng kawalan ng tunay na rebolusyong proletaryo sa bansa. Pinakumplika pa ito ng pagkakawatak-watak ng kilusang kaliwa at ng patuloy na lantaran at potensyal na marahas na debate ng mga pwersa. Nagdudulot ito ng kahirapang magbigay ng epektibong pampulitikang pamumuno upang dalhin ang masa ng anakpawis sa rebolusyonaryong posisyon ng pagtatayo ng sosyalismo.
Malakas ang pwersa ng reaksyon habang ang ibat ibang paksyon ng burgesya ay nananatiling nagkakaiba sa interes nilang mapanatili ang istabilidad ng naghaharing sistemang burges. Nananatiling ang paksyonal na hidwaan ay sa loob ng balangkas ng kanilang pagnanais na pangalagaan ang paghaharing burgesya laban sa rebolusyonaryong pwersa. Walang malalang krisis sa pamamahala maliban sa labanan ng mga paksyon para sa kontrol at popularidad upang iprisinta ang kanilang sarili bilang mas epektibong tagahawak ng manibela ng burges na pamahalaan.
Inililinaw ng Leninismo ang pundamental na batas ng rebolusyon ng ganito: “. para maganap ang rebolusyon, di sapat na makita ng inaapi at pinagsasamantalahang anakpawis na imposible at di na maaring mabuhay sa dating sistema at sumigaw para sa pagbabago; upang maganap ang rebolusyon, mahalagang ang mga nagsasamantala at nang-aapi ay di na makapamuhay at makapaghari tulad ng dati. Magtatagumpay lamang ang rebolusyon kapag ang mga ‘mababang uri’ ay ayaw nang mabuhay sa lumang sistema at ang ‘mataas na uri’ ay di na kayang mamuno tulad ng dati. Kung ganuon, para maganap ang rebolusyon, mahalaga, una, na alam ng mayorya ng mga manggagawa na walang ibang paraan kundi ang rebolusyon, at desidido silang mamatay para rito; at pangalawa, ang mga naghaharing uri ay dumaranas ng krisis sa pamamahala na humihila kahit ng pinaka-atrasadong masa na lumalahok sa pulitika’pahinain ang gubyerno at gawing posible para sa mga rebolusyonaryo na mabilis na pabagsakin ito.
Sa panahong ito na ang mga kondisyon ng rebolusyonaryong krisis ay wala pa, kung kailan ang suhetibong kondisyon ng uring proletaryado ay di pa handang gampanan ang kanyang istorikal na misyon, at di pa hinog ang materyal na kondisyon para sa rebolusyong proletaryo, ang transisyon o partikular na pamamaraan para sa sosyalistang rebolusyon ay dapat itakda at itaguyod.
Itinakda ng RPMP ang pangangailangang isulong ang anti-imperyalista at demokratikong pakikibaka para sa sosyalismo bilang linya ng pagsulng sa transisyon sa proletaryong rebolusyon batay sa pag-aaral nito sa di-pantay na pag-unlad ng kapitalismo sa lipunang Pilipino, at sa kanyang ML na linyang pang-ideolohiya.
Batay dito, nilinaw pa lalo na isa sa mga kagyat na tungkulin sa kasalukuyang panahon ang paggamit ng parlamentaryo at elektoral na proseso upang mamulat, ma-organisa at mapakilos ang pinakamalawak na masa ng uring manggagawa sa bansa para sa kanilang tunay na interes at laban sa misrepresentasyon ng burgesya. Dapat gawin ang tungkuling ito upang mabago ang posisyon ng kapangyarihan at pribilehiyo sa pagitan ng uring manggagawa at ng burgesya tungo sa pagpupundar ng lakas ng uring manggagawa sa pamamahala.
Batay sa kagyat na rebolusyonaryong tungkuling itinakda sa anti-imperyalista at demokratikong programang transisyon, at sa ispisipikong direksyon ng pagsusulong ng pakikibakang parlamentaryo at elektoral, dapat isulong ng RPMP ang larangan ng gawaing ito upang makamit ang mga partikular na pampulitikang layunin:
Organisahin ang pinakamalawak na bilang ng manggagawa sa urban at rural, at ang mala-proletaryado upang maihayag at maitulak ang kanilang kagyat na demokratiko at pang-ekonomyang interes sa plataporma at programa ng gubyerno bilang panlaban sa anti-mahirap at maka-imperyalistang posisyon ng burges na opisyal ng gubyerno.
Imulat (educate) ang libu-libong masa ng proletaryado at mala-proletaryado sa pangangailangan magpaunlad ng kanilang sariling kinatawan at lakas sa mga posisyong inihahalal sa gubyerno at labanan ang pagkiling nila sa mga burges na kandidato at partido upang buuin ang tunay na boses at demokrasya ng uring anakpawis.
Himukin ang mga progresibong propesyunal at iba pang panggitnang pwersa sa ibat ibang institusyon at organisasyon na suportahan ang mga inisyatiba ng naghihikahos (marginalized) na sektor upang palakasin ang kanilang tinig sa larangan ng parlamento at eleksyon tungo sa pagpapahusay ng kanilang kalagayan.
Enganyuhin at suportahan ang kanilang mga paglaban sa elitistang kontrol at manipulasyon sa opisinang publiko at prosesong elektoral tungo sa pagpapaunlad ng tunay-na-nakabatay sa demokrasyang tinig at interes ng mayorya.
Ilantad upang mapahina ang suporta at ihiwalay ang ma sagad na reaksyunaryo at anti-manggagawang plataporma/programa at mga opisyal/kandidato na gumagamit ng posisyong publiko upang isulong ang kanilang makasariling interes.
Paunlarin at palawakin ang mga positibong relasyon sa mga indibidwal sa mga nakatayong burges na partidong pulitikal, at ang burukrasyang magsisilbi sa pagsusulong ng iba pang layuning pulitikal.
Makipag-ugnayan sa internasyunal na organisasyon, partido.
Isulong ang ma isyu ng ma pambansang minorya
Upang makamit ang mga nabanggit na layuning pulitikal, ang RPMP ay dapat na magsagawa ng mga sumusunod na praktikal na hakbangin. Ang mga ito ay dapat pang ilinaw sa mga implan at mga sesyon ng pagpapaplano sa antas ng legal at organisasyong masa.
Buuin ang makinarya ng isang pambansang partidong pulitikal na magsisilbi bilang pangunahing behikulo para sa implementasyon ng mga tungkuling pampartido para sa mga usaping parlamentaryo at elektoral
Ihanay ang lahat ng pormasyon pulitikal sa ilalim ng pamumuno ng RPMP upang aktibong mapalahok at maibuhos ang kanilang suporta sa pagpapalakas ng elektoral na partidong pulitikal.
Pamunuan ang mga sektoral na pormasyon ng masa upang aktibong maitakda ang kanilang elektoral at parlamentaryong agenda para sa pagpapaunlad ng kanilang mga kinatawan sa gubyerno.
Organisahin ang mga militanteng sosyalista para pamunuan ang ma aktibistang masa sa pagsasagawa ng gawaing pagmumulat at pag-oorganisa ng mga di-organisadong masa ng manggagawa at mala-proletaryado na susuporta sa mga progresibong kandidato at plataporma.
Paunlarin ang pinansyal at materyal na rekurso (resources) (kapabilidad) na kailangan para masuportahan ang makinarya at aktibidad para sa depenidong layuning parlamentaryo at elektoral.
Magbuo at magpaunlad ng produktibong relasyon sa mga potensyal na alyado sa mga burges na partidong pulitikal at sa burukrasya.
Maglimbag at mamahagi ng babasahin na maghahayag/magpapakalat ng mga progresibong plataporma/programa sa kandidato/opisyal at maglalantad sa mga kaaway ng interes ng uring manggagawa sa gubyerno.
Maksimisahin ang koordinasyon sa rebolusyonaryong armadong pwersa para sa kailangang tulong-militar sa mga kailangang-kailangang sitwasyon.