democracy and communism (left in philippines)

8/2/2019 Democracy and Communism (Left in Philippines)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/democracy-and-communism-left-in-philippines 1/5

Joel Rocamora

Democracy and Communism Joel Rocamora Institute for

Popular Democracy, 14 September 2002

CPP not terrorist

BRINGING THE AMERICANS and the Communist Party of the Philippines

(CPP) together continues to stir the political pot. Suddenly everyone is

asking if Joema is a "terrorist". Leave it to the Americans to get us asking

the wrong questions all over again. I have problems with the CPP but it is

definitely not a "terrorist organization". It does not engage in repeated,

indiscriminate killings of non-combatants to achieve political effect.

The Arroyo administration, with the assistance of the Americans, is using

"anti-terrorism" discourse to open up the diplomatic front in its fight

against the CPP. Because it continues to be preoccupied with the Abu

Sayyaf, the military knows that it cannot do much against the NPA. One

area where the CPP is vulnerable is in Holland. With a new rightwing

government including the anti-refugee "List Pim Fortuyn", the Dutch

readily agreed to American demands to freeze CPP/NDF bank deposits.

How much practical effect this will have remains uncertain. Bank deposits

of identified CPP leaders have finally been frozen but only after they have

had time to withdraw funds. Even if these known accounts are frozen, it

would not have much impact. The CPP certainly does not keep open

accounts. The government has apparently cut off housing allowances but

not social security payments, which sustain CPP cadres in Holland. I

seriously doubt stories coming from NDF circles that the Dutch are

planning to extradite Joema to the US.

The reason for this inaction may be that the new right wing government

has to fight against deeply embedded liberal traditions in the bureaucracy

and the judiciary left over from decades of left-of-center social democratic

governments. There is, however, a bill pending in parliament which wouldadopt the shameful Australian practice of putting refugees in

concentration camps. If this bill passes, the CPP is in trouble. Being in a

concentration camp would certainly cramp Joema’s style.

Left Dis-Course: Send in the "Vanguard"

I AM NOT sure what it says of the Philippine Left that even a failed

http://www.tni.org/users/joel-rocamora

http://www.tni.org/archives/fellows/rocamora.htm

http://www.tni.org/archives/fellows/rocamora.htm

http://www.tni.org/users/joel-rocamora



government counter-insurgency initiative has an impact on how we relate

to each other. Defensive responses from the CPP are understandable,

even if I wonder sometimes what political impact threats on Americans in

the Philippines are supposed to elicit, and from whom. We are all

forewarned not to fall into the trap of attacking each other. But do we

really need help from the Americans on this? The CPP reserves its best

rhetorical weapons against other Left groups. Victor Briz of Bukluran ng

Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) could not resist a gratuitous insult against

Akbayan in a letter on the terrorism issue.

The CPP and those Popoy Lagman left behind are the most arrogant

towards other Left groups. A decade after, Joema is still fighting the RA-

RJ battle. Bayan Muna prefers to embrace Gloria Macapagal Arroyo rather

than Ric Reyes. Sanlakas prefers the pro-Erap People’s Movement Against

Poverty (PMAP) to the socialist Bisig. I asked a leader of one of the groupswhich merged with Sanlakas if the insulting arrogance of some of her

comrades is an ideological stance or a post mortem aping of Popoy’s

personality. When I look back on the united front work of the CPP, its

cadres have been least arrogant, most respectful of other perspectives

during periods of rapid growth of its forces. Is it possible that today’s

arrogance goes with unacknowledged doubt about the prospects of

victory?

Is embracing doubt counter-revolutionary? It certainly does not do much

for party discipline. But those of us who have abandoned "vanguard"arrogance embrace self-doubt as a necessary antidote to sectarianism.

The shinier side of the coin of doubt is respect for the work of other

progressives. Doubt becomes a problem when it results in self-imposed

intimidation from those who by virtue of their revolutionary arrogance

presume to set standards for other Left groups.

The only antidote to this kind of intimidation is to sort out what standards

should be common for all who claim to be Left, and those which go with

chosen ideological stances and strategy and tactics. The irreducible

minimum is acceptance of each other’s dedication to the poor andoppressed. Without this, antagonism is not only justified, it is obligatory.

If we can accept this of each other, we can then debate the two major

issues we confront, what alternative society are we offering our people,

and how do we get there - strategy and tactics.

Please excuse me if I postpone a discussion of alternatives. Because we



spend a lot of our time and energy justifiably attacking capitalism, we

have no choice, at least initially, but to focus on a discussion of socialism.

I cannot, for the life of me, claim to know what a socialist economy,

society, and politics would mean. Worse, I do not know where to go for

help. Not anymore to the "actually existing socialisms" of the USSR and

Eastern Europe. Not to the Chinese and Vietnamese who were smart

enough to prevent the collapse of their regimes by adopting many aspects

of capitalist relations. For godsake, even the "beloved leader" is reported

to be seeing ideological lessons from the massive discrepancy in living

standards between North and South Korea.

If we accept democracy as a progressive value, I could say my answer to

the socialism question is whatever we succeed in shaping in the course of

struggling for it. So that this answer does not become an evasion, I have

to admit that it does not exempt us from the tasks of leadership - fromhaving a vision that sets parameters for negotiated outcomes. Because,

despite the ideological bravado of some groups, no one on the Left really

has answers to this "ends" issue; much of the debate on the Left is really

about strategy and tactics.

I don’t have much patience anymore for approaching the issue from the

vantage point of whether there is a "revolutionary situation" that justifies

taking up arms, especially when there are those who have been saying

such a "revsit" has been around for the last 40-or-so years. This is not

only un-Marxist, it is political "whistling in the dark". I prefer a morepractical approach, one which asks where we are going to get heavier

weapons for the latter stages of guerrilla warfare, especially when the two

times the CPP tried to smuggle in weapons, they sunk the boats

themselves. There is a much more important question, that of leadership,

of our relations with the people we presume to lead.

Issues related to political leadership will always be debated because social

conditions are constantly changing. On the part of those who would

presume to lead, there are matters of choice. Leading means being some

distance from the people you want to lead. How far ahead is the firstchoice. Marxist Leninists attach names to these distances, short ones are

"reformist;" farther distances, "revolutionary". We used to get all worked

up over the finer details of the difference. At this time what is important

for me are the social costs we ask the people we lead to bear. The more

"revolutionary", the greater the social cost. If there is consultation about



costs, "how much" is a matter of negotiation.

The problem is, the more "revolutionary" the goal, the greater the need to

work underground, and then the more difficult "negotiation" becomes.

When you are engaged in armed struggle, there is a premium on

discipline. When bullets are flying, you do not consult. But it is precisely

under these conditions that you ask the greatest sacrifice. Being

underground means extremely difficult living conditions, risking capture,

being jailed and possibly tortured. Guerrillas are asked to make the

ultimate sacrifice. The communities where guerrillas operate also pay the

cost of military operations in lives and the disruption of carefully worked

out strategies for survival.

Armed struggle generates a terrible strain on the social fabric of

communities where guerrillas operate. When guerrillas begin their work,

everything is kept quiet and discreet. When the community is won over to

the struggle, the existence of the party and its mass organizations moves

more and more into the open. Maintaining strict military security then

becomes the responsibility of the whole community. In effect, the

community becomes militarized. Family, economic and other social

relations outside the community become more and more difficult.

The other social cost of armed struggle is borne by the guerrillas

themselves. I have not written much against armed struggle because I do

not want to insult those who engage in it. Most of the guerrillas I’veknown, I admire. Especially their acceptance of the possibility of torture.

But torture by comrades? Robert Francis Garcia’s book, To Suffer Thy

Comrades: How the Revolution Decimated Its Own, does not make for a

full accounting of costs. It is only part of an answer, one which, in the

intensity of the horror it exposes, forces us to confront a whole host of

other issues. I won’t be diplomatic about this - I find the CPP position on

the purges disgusting.

What families of victims of the CPP anti-DPA campaigns want is a dignified

burial, the kind of accounting which enables them to give meaning to thedeaths of their sons, daughters, and other kin; lovers and friends. Those

who survived the torture want to dream other dreams, rather than their

nightmares.

What the CPP wants is not a decent burial for its victims - what it wants is

to bury the issue.

democracy and communism (left in philippines)

Documents