THE COLLAPSE of Stalinism internationaliy is continuing to generate a ferment of discussion and divisions in sections of the anti-imperialist movement.
The underground Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is one of the last ones still clinging openly and ruthlessly to the old politics, with its exiled leader Joma Sison issuing a document in 1994 explicitly rallying the party to the banner and name of Stalin.
Re-formed in 1968, with strong Maoist influences, the CPP adopted and still adheres to the strategy of waging a 'people's war' and of 'encircling cities from the countryside' based on the Chinese experience under Mao Zedong. It emphasised long term mass work in the countryside, and the activities of its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA).
Sison, who backed the Chinese Stalinists' brutal 1989 repression in Tienanmen Square, rejects any notion of a united front not led by the CPP, and has expelled opponents who challenge this line.
However CPP activists also olaved a leading role in the broader National Democratic Front, which in turn played a key role in the development of the militant union federation the KMU (May ist Movement), launched in 1980, which at its height claimed to organise over 700,000 workers. Though many of its original organisers were Communists, as a union, the KMU clearly had to reach out much wider than CPP members, and developed a degree of political independence.
KMU strength tended to be in the cities rather than the country areas, and the strategy of people's war is clearly inappropriate for long-term work in the unions.
Failure
These problems were further underlined by the failure of the CPP or KMU to capitalise on the situation following the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. There were tactical differences between the NDF and the CPP leadership over whether or not to boycott the 1986 elections, the role of armed struggle and the united front.
Growing currents within the KMU. the NDF and the CPP itself have begun to reject the traditional Stalinist strategy. The strongest challenge to the Sison line have come from the big cities, and in Manila the entire regional leadership of the CPP (Manila-Rizal) has split. Similar bitter splits have proliferated throughout the Philippines left and trade union movement.
The KMU's 1993 May Day PAHN MINT rally saw a clash between supporters and opponents of Sison, each shouting slogans at the other side.
As a result important forces adhering to neither side in the factional divide have pulled away from the KMU, and a range of new regroupments have begun to take shape.
There are now at least four groups on the Philippines left worthy of mention.
• SANLAKAS, based predominantly in the Manila working class, to which is affiliated a trade union federation United Workers for Change (BMP), and organisations of women, the urban poor, and students. The BMP is a split from the KMU, which mirrored almost exactly the split of the ManilaRizal regional committee of the CPP. Also affiliated to SANLAKAS is the 'democratic socialist political current Makabayan, whose politics are close to the Manila-Rizal committee.
• SIGLAYA, based primarily upon a breakaway from the National Democrat-led Filipino Peasant Federation (KMP). It also has a newly formed feminist organisation, and is committed to a national-democratic programme.
• BISIG, formed in 1986 after the fall of Marcos, brought together socialists who had long-standing disagreements with the (Maoist) ideological positions and (Stalinist) organisational practices of the Sisonled CPP. BISIG disagreed with both the CPP and National Democrats over whether capitalism could play a progressive role, and argued that the social question was 'not merely a democratic anti-feudal question, but the socialist anti-capitalist question.' BISIG influences the APL trade union federation, but is smaller than SANLAKAS.
• BAYAN/KMU - based upon the sections of the National Democratic Movement still influenced by the CPP. Its recent mobilisations have been smaller than SANLAKAS, and sometimes smaller than SIGLAYA and BISIG. It refuses to work with other organisations on the left, and has refused to condemn CPP threats to "arrest" the former ManilaRizal leadership and try them in a 'people's court'
Philippines is to keep on struggling against the state. In the political arena now there is a popular struggle against GATT by the unions and by the farmers' organisations and by the urban poor.
The GATT treaty is up for approval by the Senate. Our organisation is planning to hold an international gathering of south east Asian trade unions against the Ircaly.
A number of employers groups are also against GATT and which have also joined the bloc against it. Even some local government officials have passed a resolution against the treaty.
This a new fight that is brewing up. The mass organisation is quite buoyed up by some recent victories. That is why the GATT campaign is attracting large support, and the urban mass movements are set to play a major role.
The guerrilla war which is still going on is being marginalised. Nothing is happening in the guerrilla areas. Many members and commanders of the New Peoples Army have come down from the mountains. Some have surrendered, and some have just simply gone back to their families. This trend has been going on for years.
The political development will be centred around the urban mass movement. Tell us about the left in the Philippines The formation which works closely with us is the BISIG. It is small and composed of at least three different currents. One current calls itself Marxist. There is a centrist current that is more or less left social democratic in its thinking. And then there is the another more right social democratic current.
What is exciting now in the Philippines is that some of the left groups have come together to form coalitions. One was former as ear v as Novemher of last year. It was called "People's Challenge".
It started off as a coalition against the Philippines 2000 programme. It is all these blocs together. There was even thinking at the time that a more programmatic unity was needed. We had a conference to get to know each other better.
Following various debates we stopped meeting. But the feeling for unity is still there. Our agenda is still to unite the left. How do you build unity with workers who don't necessarily believe in the socialist project, but who are willing to fight, against, say, GATT for example? Our project right now in the unions is reunificaton of the whole trade union movement. We are pushing for it through our trade union organisation the BMP.
The project is gaining ground because it was able to start off a coalition of trade unionists called 'the caucus for labour unity'. All the major trades unions joined except the KMU and the FFW (both on ideological grounds - the KMU because it is under the control of the Sison wing; the FFW because it is a catholic Christian This is how we manage to have a broader base among the unions. This kind of formation gathers all the unions around concrete political projects, _ around struggle against the govemment. This formation - Militant Fight - is directly in opposition to government policies. This means direct opposition by demonstrations and whatever forms are appropriate.
During the Marcos period in the 1970s, when Martial Law was imposed, it was very hard for unions to struggle. Demonstrations were banned. Strikes were banned. The Communist Party did a lot of organising at the time, starting up underground unions. Most of the unions share this history.
This gives most of the unions on the left a certain radicalism based on the kind of education they had at the time: it is basically revolutionary, around the national democratic programme, but that is also revolutionary democracy.
With regards to the conception of the united front as a block of four classes: there is no organisation representing the national bourgeoisie.
There is no organisation of a revolutionary character, or even a progressive character, that represents the national bourgeoisie. There are tactical alliances with the employers group, with the capitalist group, against GATT and the tax increase, but these are tactical alliances not part of a united front strategy. The united front applies basically to the left.
It is funny - we had the idea that we would find a section of capitalists who are progressive, who would join the national democratic revolution. Then we even set up an organisation to gather these capitalists together!
All it gathered was some of the petty bourgeoisie. This is why we stopped using those terms. Because it doesn't mean anything at all to us. It just confuses us. What are the main political debates between the left currents in the Philippines? The main debate is basically on the question of party building. It is essential to rally round all the opposition groups who are opposed to the Sison CPP line. The question is how to unify the opposition in an alternative party.
The split in the CPP began around the character of the party - its Stalinist character. Only afterwards did it become more programmatical. Now it is entirely at the level of programme.
The Manilla-Rizal region of the Philippines Communist Party (MR) and, I think, the other territorial organs, are clear that there should still be a Marxist-Leninist party. But they are also clear that this does not mean the Marxism-Leninism that has been propounded by the Stalinists and Maoists.
It is basically the Leninism of the Bolsheviks that should be the model - one that is vibrant and alive. So this is to be party of the Bolshevik type, where you can have debates, that is very democratic. That is basically the MR view.
The other view wants to build a looser formation - more of a front. This view is advocated by comrades who are drifting towards social democracy under the ideas of developing a 'civil society' rather than building parties which are based on objectives of state power.
I understand that in Australia this sort of politics is sometimes called "post modernism". But in the Philippines it has no such name!
Some of its advocates identify themselves with the left of social democracy: they ask "what is wrong with social democracy anyway - is it not the same as national democracy?".
This is true - the national democratic SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 75. 7 January 1995, Page 11 programme of the Sison wing of the Communist Party is basically social democracy. But this is the whole point of disagreement!
Our whole criticism is based on the belief that theirs is solely a national democratic struggie, not a struggle for How have you approached international links? One of our key debates was on the semi-colonial/semi-feudal theory. Manila-Rizal is now saying that the Philippines is basically capitalist.
We also have a critique of the protracted peoples war - against the guerrilla war strategy, which is not suited to the conditions in the Philippines. We returned to the Leninist position of opening up all arenas of struggle, including the electoral one.
The NPA units are not now the focus of our activity. Instead we emphasise the organisation of, for example, the farmworkers.
When we started going through the programmatics after the split we were looking first at the idea of internationalism. One of the ideas we repudiate is that socialism can be established in a single country. We see that as a Stalinist distortion.
We see socialism as a world project. This is why we have decided to be active in international gatherings; to link up with all international groupings. So that's why when we split up we were looking for an organisation that was anti-Stalinist, anti-Maoist and opposed to the national democratic conception of socialism.
I have attended the Fourth International's Amsterdam school and was invited to its IEC to observe. Many things were clarified but there are still some questions left.
What is clear to us is that we would like to have joint co-operation, especially on a country to country basis, aside from the Fourth International groups. The way the struggle is developing right now is also national in character. What do you think of Trotskyism? Trotskyism is still a dirty word in the Philippines. It is better to first discuss programmatics and then use the word, so as not to close off debate.
I can say with some confidence that the comrades of Manila-Rizal would find it very difficult to understand Trotsky at this point in time, because I myself have not yet read a single book of Trotsky's. Maybe there is some resistance!
MU
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 75. 7 January 1995, Page 12
METRO METRO I DES
CAMOSA PAL.