Philippines discussion
postscript
Following the discussion I would just like to go back over certain questions.
There are many important questions I have not taken up. In the Philippines there is a fundamental debate on the nature of this society. The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) has traditionally defined it as 'semifeudal, semi-colonial' which I think, apart from anything else, seriously underestimates the extent of capitalist development (capitalism of a dependent type). Unfortunately I have not been able to recently follow the development of this debate.
The guerilla struggle is also facing new problems. It has reached a certain threshold, in some regions, which is not easy to go beyond. Indeed it is necessary to take a big step to a higher level of military confrontation which requires qualitatively better arms and a greater capability of protecting the population.
As for my judgement on the CPP's positions, I would say that my main problem concerns its conception of the role of the party in society. As I have said its errors generally have been more sectarian than opportunist! But I would like to emphasise another aspect of this question. The role of the party is not seen simply as that of a political vanguard. It seems to me we can say it functions as a 'leading faction' of society—in relation to its own members today, but also in the guerilla zones and in its vision of the future.
I will take an example that is particularly striking. The CPP marries and divorces its members. It has the right for example to refuse a divorce requested by two partners. The party units have a duty to follow the personal relations of their members and to intervene as marriage counsellors.
Of course we should not forget all this is tied up with the need for
76 International Marxist Review security and the hard conditions of guerilla struggle. The moral arming of party members is considered-correctly in my opinion-as an indispensable element for maintaining revolutionary activity over a long period. Furthermore the underground cell of the party or the NPA often becomes in practice a sort of 'shadow' government opposed to the reactionary administration well before people's committees are able to emerge.
But the CPP also defends an ahistorical conception of 'proletarian morality' in the sphere of sexual and sentimental relations-an approach that is often not very different from the Catholic bishops! More significant is that fact that by taking on the right to marry and divorce it takes the place of the State and the Church. I think this exemplifies a certain idea of the party's role in society which is wrong and very dangerous. The February 1987 referendum Brown, on behalf of the Fourth Internationalist Tendency of the USA, has criticised the fact that, in a brief article in International Viewpoint, BISIG's position on the Aquino constitution (a critical 'yes') was not explicitly condemned as contrary to our principles. I do not think we have to critically scan every single position of all the Philippine organisations. But the question is not as simple as it seems.
The Aquino constitution is a bourgeois constitution. We all know it and this has been clearly written down. Does it follow that a 'no' vote is necessary? The constitutional referendum was a real trap for the proletarian left: The latter had fought against the way in which this constitution has been worked out—but it was not able to win this battle and more than anything else emerged the loser.
The left was profoundly divided on which way to vote in the February 1987 constitutional referendum. Prioritising clarification in the medium term against the Aquino regime, the National Democratic Front (NDF) called for a 'no' vote (which the SA (US) resolution does not clearly admit). But the 'no' vote was a trap since the only alternative was the old Marcos constitution and the 'no' camp was dominated by the restorationist and 'neo-fascist' far right. A series of coup threats has just highlighted how menacing the dictatorial forces still are.
Prioritising these immediate factors in the political situation a large number of left organisations (including BISIG, but a lot of others too) called for a 'critical yes' vote. But the 'critical yes' vote was also a trap, at a time when the government was going to use this constitutional legitimacy to reject the NDF's substantial proposals concerning the conditions for a lasting peace and to consolidate a new form of bourgeois rule.
My instinctive response to the dilemma was on the one hand to minimise as much as possible the concrete importance of this political event (since the battle was generally lost before it started) —but this was not easy. On the other hand my inclination was to consider abstention (putting a blank
Philippines discussion postscript 77 ballot paper in the box) as a way of getting out of the trap. I was not in the Philippines and I only gathered faint soundings of what was happening there. I was only able to discuss the question with a few Filipino activists passing through Europe. Furthermore to my great discomfort no one seemed impressed with the proposal of abstention. One activist accused me of re-running the boycott tactic (although that is different from an abstentionist vote). Another comrade looked at me and asked, 'and then what?'
Reminding people that the Aquino constitution is bourgeois has been done, but does not resolve the problem, everybody-or nearly everybody—knows this in the Philippines. The political problem was how to avoid the trap of the constitutional referendum in February 1987—or if not, how to minimise the costs and maximise the gains in the short and medium term? Once again we have a concrete question requiring a real knowledge of the situation. I do not know how to answer that problem! In a brief article and lacking such knowledge, it seemed more reasonable to me to begin by taking up the heart of the matter (the nature of the constitution and the political situation), giving information on the positions of the Philippine left and to wait to have more information in order to come back later to the question of which voting slogan to put forward.
Is not listening to what Philippine activists have to say uniquely important if we want to discuss with them, indeed to convince them? How else can we do it without listening to their arguments? It is also necessary to provide solid information to the readers of our international press and to show how the political options are presented in a given situation and a given country. This is more difficult but more educational than limiting ourselves just to giving general judgements on the class character of governments, regimes and constitutions. Building a section of the International Joe has firmly explained that we need, today, to build a Fourth International (FI) section in the Philippines. But he did not explain what that means. Once again let's not wind ourselves up with resounding phrases but look reality squarely in the face. There was a group linked to the FI in the Philippines, a very small group but at that time-the beginning of the 1970s—there was space for everybody.
But the vital test came very quickly—the imposition of martial law. The CPP was the backbone of resistance to the dictatorship, that is how it won its central position in the people's movement. All the little groups, even individuals, who succeeded in keeping a minimum political identity during the dictatorship are today part of the recomposition of the militant left in the Philippines. But the little group linked to us totally disintegrated. We have lost the opportunity of being a component, even a very minor one, in the regroupments going on today in the militant Phillipines left.
78 International Marxist Revien
We have to take that into consideration when we discuss our perspectives. The Philippine militant left has a history and roots. It has evolved and has started many debates, but on the basis of a major experience that we might have been able to go through. Now we are external to this. As far as I know no Philippine organisation has asked to join the FI. So let's discuss concrete choices.
For Joe, I imagine, it is insufficient to publicise our existence, our politics, our literature, our experiences and to be involved in a political and ideological debate with who we like there. All that has already been done, within the limits of our (meagre) means and does not seem to satisfy him. So what does "building a section now' actually mean?
If 'building a section' means recruiting a dozen comrades who identify with our general programme, we can try and find some still unorganised students by spending the necessary time and money at the University of the Philippines. But we know in advance the results of such a policy in a situation like in the Philippines. How can such a group, without any experience, formed necessarily in opposition to other militant groups (you will have to really justify the efforts required to build another organisation when so many already exist), how can it respond to the tasks of the moment, more effectively than the already existing organisations which have an implantation and apparatuses of experienced activists? Through the virtues of general programmatic references? This is the crux of the problem in a country like the Philippines, if we want to build a revolutionary organisation and not a study circle-the key is being able to respond effectively to the tasks of the moment.
If we want to 'build a section' today but with experienced cadres then we would have to go and find them where they exist—in other organisations. Let's be clear this would mean enticing them away from their organisations! Such a perspective has little chance of success. On the other mind is nevicable consequence is. No the basks up fall acthe sach 'poaching' without reacting. Such a policy would be neither principled nor effective. It would be disastrous.
So what can we do? A lot and we can be enthusiastic about it. But to understand what to do we have to stop conceiving of building the FI as the simple multiplication of its nominal sections, whatever the country or situation may be. We have already discussed this at the last World Congress. There is more than one way of building the FI and getting it to play its internationalist role.
We already exist in a large number of countries. We have to consolidate ourselves there and prove ourselves. We can actively contribute to forming revolutionary groups in countries where they hardly or do not exist. This is an internationalist duty and if we do it we will grow. We can participate in processes of revolutionary regroupment, in places where we exist alongside other forces and there are favourable conditions (even if this means at least temporarily losing the formal affiliation of a national
section). Finally we can build fraternal links with militant organisations in countries where we have no forces and where the revolutionary far left
The Philippines falls into this last category. We must recognise the existence of the militant left of this country and collaborate with it. We are not able to replace it, but we can build links with it and open a real dialogue. We have a lot to learn from its experience and discussions. And we have something to offer. Our solidarity. Our own historical and international experience. The lessons (programmatic and political) we have drawn from this. Our activist membership. All this is vital.
By doing this we can contribute to bringing about the conditions for a new unitary spirit and a new internationalism with revolutionary organisations with different revolutionary pasts than our own. We should not see this as a waste of time. It is also a way for the FI to respond to present tasks, certainly a difficult one but there is no easier way of going about it.
The discussion has helped clarify my question about sources. Brown and
Joe base themselves nearly uniquely on the press-and Ang Bayan, press organ of the CPP (unfortunately read in a very slanted way by the reporter of Socialist Action (US)). Joe has even stated that SA (US) 'does not have an expert on the Philippines and have not been in the Philippines' adds Joe, the SA (US) 'knows something about the principles of the class
Here we touch on one of the main differences brought out by the discussion. It is not enough to have a general knowledge of 'class struggle principles' to evaluate the political line to be implemented in a given country!
Last year we passed a brief resolution on the overthrow of the dictatorship.
It seemed correct to me. We decided on solidarity tasks. Nothing obliges us to vote on line resolutions. We have not even been able to exhaustively discuss the situation in the Philippines and its evolution.
I could myself propose a resolution and request a vote. What use would it be? The vote would go in terms of confidence, former factional alignments or analogies with other better-known countries. If certain comrades wish to condemn, 'in principle' the content of articles from our press, they can certainly propose it. But in discussing the fundamental political questions we do not begin by voting! Our press published a great deal of information, documents and interviews ... The reader has the means to make up his or her mind. Let us take our time to collectively
Philippines discussion postscript 79 is already broadly developed.
Let us take our time struggle' reflect on this process. It will be more productive.
. But
iNTERNATiØNAL MARXIST REVIEW
International Marxist Review/Quatrième Internationale
Published by Presse-Edition-Communications (PEC)-SARL
Administration: 2 rue Richard Lenoir, 93108 Montreuil, France
Directeur de publication: Leon Cremieux
Commission paritaire: 55939