Posted to the Website of Jose Maria Sison (Dec 19):
Text and Context: Radical Philippine Historiography and Revolutionary Texts in Island Southeast Asia
Pingkian: Journal for Emancipatory and
Anti-Imperialist Edication
Vol2, No.1, Pp. 9-22, August 2013
Text and Context: Radical Philippine
Historiography and Revolutionary Texts in
Island Southeast Asia
Francis A. Gealogo
Ateneo de Manila University
Philippines
Introduction
The publication of The Philippine Society and Revolution1 by
Amado Guerrero/Jose Ma. Sison2 created a new direction in the tradition of
radical Philippine historiography that unapologetically and and unequivocally
declared itself to be influenced and guided by the classical tradition of
“Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung thought.” This trajectory created a
generation of Philippine radical historians, social scientists and social
activists who were/are appreciative of, and have a clear theoretical grounding
on, the basics of Marxism as the guiding ideological principle in the understanding of Philippine historical realities. After being published
as a series of essays in the Philippine Collegian of the University of the Philippines,
Sison’s work transcended its academic origins and became part of the essential
readings for mass activists and revolutionaries who sought to understand
Philippine realities based on the radical mode of historical
interpretation. Taking a step farther than the ones earlier established
by academic and progressive historians like Teodoro Agoncillo, Cesar Majul and
Renato Constantino, Guerrero was unequivocal about his use of Marxism, Leninism
and Mao Tsetung Thought as the sole harbinger of ideological truth that brought
to light a radical and revolutionary interpretation to Philippine society and
history. Moreover, the clear intent of the work that it be utilized
by social activists and revolutionaries and not simply be read by academics in
the classrooms – clearly distinguished itself from the other strands of
radical nationalist Philippine historical studies that were more often than not confined to the walls of
academic debate and discussion.
Given this trajectory, most of the reviews and reactions to
Guerrero’s work tended to locate the work in the light of the essentially
non-Southeast Asian and historical trajectories. These had a tendency to look
at the Philippine Society and Revolution as well as the other basic documents
of the Communist Party of the Philippines,
as but a localized Philippine edition of the basic works of Mao Tsetung and the
influences of European Marxism and Russian Leninism to radical Philippine
historiography. Moreover, most of the reviews of the works would usually
highlight these origins (essentially European Marxism, Russian Leninism and
Chinese Maoism) as the major source of ideological inspiration and
philosophical motivation that convinced Jose Ma. Sison to write the book. Given
this trajectory, most of the reviews and reactions to Guerrero’s work tended to
locate By placing Sison’s radical national historiography as part of the
continuing ideological development of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung
thought, the work was often appreciated as part of a unilinear continuum of his
ideas.
Not fully highlighted by other Sison readers, however, the
Philippine Society and Revolution could also be appropriately placed and located
in the historical tradition of Southeast Asian radical nationalist
historiography. Foremost of which was the influence to Sison of the Indonesian
communist D. N. Aidit and his work Indonesian Society and Indonesian
Revolution, among others. The parallel between the two works of Southeast Asian
radicals seemed to go beyond the obvious similarity of the titles of the work.
The “localization” (one would say “nativization”) of radical Marxist
historiography in the context of Southeast Asian social and historical
realities and the application of the theory to political action in an
archipelagic context were obvious parallels.
But beyond the parallelism and the resemblance, mention must
also be cited on the differences in approaches and trajectories that were also
obvious in the two works. The Philippine appreciation of the “lessons” of the
Indonesian experience of 1965, and the Indonesian Left’s openness to
parliamentary struggle prior to the debacle, somehow cemented the idea of the
inevitability of armed revolution as the only solution to the contradictions
facing Philippine society. On the other hand, the earlier work on the
Indonesian society and revolution tended to be still open to electoral and
non-armed component of social change as viable options for the revolutionaries.
Beyond the parallelism and contrast of the two works, one
must also be able to locate Guerrero’s appreciation of the Southeast Asian
developments in terms of nation formation and their “collective struggle
against imperialism, bureaucrat capitalism and feudalism.” One may observe
Guerrero’s positive and affirmative regard to the Indonesian struggle at nation
formation and class-based democratic movement as something that the Philippines
could emulate and follow. The references to the lessons learned from the
Indonesian tragedy of 1965 clearly pointed to Guerrero’s orientation of looking
at the Indonesian experience as something that may positively contribute to the
understanding of the Philippine revolution. The other essays published in the
compendium Struggle for National Democracy and the other party documents “Our
Urgent Tasks”, “Specific Characteristics of our People’s War”, “Stand for
Socialism against Modern Revisionism”, among others, indicated such an
appreciation of the parallel historical experiences and social conditions of
the Philippines and Indonesia ranging from the recognition of the same
“archipelagic characteristics of the national geography as essential in
strategizing the protracted people’s war”, as well as the recognition of the
contemporary attempts of the “imperialist nations to frustrate the mass of
democratic and progressive peoples from realizing their aim at national
liberation in the region.”
If the contemporary Indonesian experience was something that
Guerrero had a clear appreciation of, in terms of nation formation and lessons
learned from the popular democratization movements of the two countries, the
contrast of its reception on the national project that was Malaysia as
something that should be criticized, disparaged, if not totally condemned was
notable. The “colonial hand” in the project that aims at the formation of
Malaysia as a nation, as well as the absence of the “people’s revolutionary
movement” in the formation of that country that will serve as the catalyst to
obliterate the face of the “evils of imperialism” in the region had always been
noted in the early writings of Sison.
Apart from Indonesia
and Malaysia, the successes
of the communist movements in Vietnam,
Laos, and Cambodia also
figured prominently in Philippine communist texts. Their historical experiences
were regarded as but an affirmation of the realization of the grand narrative
of the historical inevitability of the victory of socialism and the eventual
defeat of imperialism.
With the foregoing discussion, this paper aims to expand a
reading of Amado Guerrero’s contribution to the genealogy of Philippine
nationalist historiography. By locating the works of Sison as part of the
genealogy of radical nationalist tradition of Southeast Asian historiography,
the research aims to broaden the perspectives on the development of both
Philippine and Southeast Asian historiography. At the same time, this paper
also aims to contribute to the re-reading of texts and works of Southeast Asian
historiography of the radical type, and possibly explain the directions,
trends, and trajectories of this type of historiography, as it affected not
only academic production, but more importantly, political and social movements
of the region.
Moreover, this paper aims to situate the texts and works of
radical Southeast Asian historiography not only as part of what was considered
as its sole traditional origin from Western Marxism and its latter versions in
Russia and China, but also to locate the tradition as part of post war
Southeast Asian radical nationalist historiography. In doing so, the research
aims to establish the modes of connectivity and
10
interaction of the Southeast Asian thinkers and activists as
they relate with one another and problematize the conditions of their own
societies. Situating the works of Sison to the tradition of radical nationalist
historiography of the region may also prove beneficial in analyzing Filipino
radical nationalism during the 1960s and 1970s as having been influenced by their
Southeast Asian neighbors. The varying, if not totally contrasting degrees of
reception provided by Sison on Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia,
for example, may indicate the extent on which the genealogy of the histories of
Southeast Asian nation formation was viewed, idealized and imagined by radical
thinkers.
On January 1962, a young Filipino intellectual who was
serving as Secretary General of the Philippine Indonesian Friendship and
Cultural Association went to Jakarta, Indonesia to study comparative literature
and Bahasa Indonesian. The trip was the young man’s first outside of the
Philippines. The young man’s name was Jose Ma. Sison.3
In the six months of his stay in Indonesia, Sison would find
Jakarta a mecca for radicals and intellectuals who were interested in
establishing the praxis of the revolutionary theories of Marxism, Leninism and
Mao Tsetung thought. The ideas of national liberation and socialism were not
only slogans and ideas to be studied. The Indonesians had just successfully
driven out the Dutch and have made a successful campaign to drive out the
vestiges of colonial occupation in West Irian. Moreover, the Partai Komunis
Indonesia (PKI) was operating in the open and was considered the biggest
non-ruling communist party in the world.
Sison himself would not elaborate on the extent of the way
the Indonesian radicals introduced Mao Tsetung thought to him, but analysts
mentioned the extreme significance of the Indonesian experience to Sison’s
formative years. For once, the writings of Mao Tse tung was not yet readily
available in Manila during that time. Secondly, some of the later writings of
Sison would strike a remarkable resemblance to the writings of the Indonesian
communist leader Dipa Nusantara Aidit.4 By the time Sison returned to the
Philippines several months after his Indonesia trip, he would be contacted by
the old party cadres, thru some recommendations from the PKI cadres who were
operating in the Philippines, to join the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP)
and would later be appointed member of the Executive Committee and head of the
Youth section.
After establishing the Kabataang Makabayan (KM, Nationalist
Youth) on 30 November 1964, Sison would position himself as a maverick even
within the Philippine communist movement. He eventually manifested the critical
stance that he had with the old guards of the party, and would be expelled from
the party by April 1967. Sison insisted that they were the ones who refused to
recognize the legitimacy of the old party leaders, represented by the Lava
brothers and Luis Taruc, and on 26 December 1968, they “reestablished” the
Communist Party of the Philippines, now ideologically guided by Marxism,
Leninism and Mao Tse tung thought. With the reestablishment of the party under
Sison’s leadership, radical texts were produced and reflected the ideological
currents guiding the basic principles of the reestablished party. The
ideological and intellectual discourses that were produced by the newly
reestablished party resonated the basic formulations of Marxism, Leninism and
Mao Tse tung Thought. But more than a simple copy of these ideas, Sison and the
newly reestablished party located the ideological positions to local Philippine
conditions, and situated his points of analysis to Southeast Asian conditions.
Southeast Asian Nations and the Discourse on Unfinished
Revolutions
Foremost in the emerging political discourse being formed by
Sison was the idea of the emergence of the Philippine nation as a product of
revolutionary movement.5 Philippine history was plotted in a radical linear
trajectory, with a past characterized by revolutionary tradition, the present
condition of the nation being beset by the basic problems of imperialism,
feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism, and the possible glorious future, with
the eventual victory of the national democratic revolution and its socialist
perspective in the future. It is interesting to note that this tripartite
perspective in history seem to be a localization of Marxism, influenced and
patterned after the historical tradition of Philippine ilustrados like Jose
Rizal, and even reflected in the revolutionary writings of Andres Bonifacio,
who were both referred to by Sison as reflective of the ideas of the national
democratic revolution of the old type.
In this formulation, the historical experience of nation
formation, however, was incomplete, if not totally aborted, because of the
unfinished revolution whose victory was overtaken by American colonialism and
neo-colonialism. Despite the granting of independence in 1946, puppet regimes
and imperialist control were retained, making the country backward and
semi-colonial.
The early revolutionary tradition of the Philippines was
projected as being that of the old type. This old type of revolution was radical
and revolutionary, yet lacking in its socialist perspective. The
reestablishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the emergence of
the ideological truths of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung Thought made the
Philippines experience a new type of national democratic revolution.
Two things could be stated as foremost in this line of
analysis. One is the idea of two-line struggle maintained and retained in the
course of interpreting Philippine national history. Revolutionary movements in
the past succeeded or failed as a result of the struggles between correct and
incorrect ideas. The failure of the early Philippine revolution was due not
only to the annexation of the Philippines by the United States, but also
because the collaboration of the ruling feudal lords and comprador bourgeoisie,
that constituted the social base of American imperialism in the country. The
ruling elites also collaborated with the Japanese in the latter period of the
Second World War, while the post war, “independence” period were marked by the
ascendancy of what he termed as puppet regimes. The need to “rectify the errors
and rebuild the party”, the line of analysis that justified the reestablishment
of the communist party, was a result of the historical trajectory of the two
line struggle. The persistence of imperialist controls, feudal structures, and
the general malaise of society characterized by bureaucrat capitalism, remained
basic problems that should be addressed. The revolution was unfinished, semi-
colonialism and semi-feudalism remained the basic characteristics of the
conditions of Philippine society, and it was the task of the communist party to
realize the completion of the Philippine revolution to its fullest.
Related to this was the idea that the revolutionary
tradition in Philippine history pointed to the direction of the necessity of
armed struggle and the historical inevitability of the revolution. Tracing the
trajectory of Philippine history as necessarily characterized by the historical
tradition of armed revolutionary movements, the realization of the historical
experience of nation formation and the completion of the national democratic
revolution must be realized as an historical inevitability, if only to complete
the revolutionary cycle of society. Revolts and rebellions against imperialism
and colonialism were constant features of Philippine history, according to
Sison. Imperialism was the main enemy of national liberation and was presented
as the main force that maintained the social base of feudalism, and the
political power of the parasitic ruling class that thrived on bureaucrat
capitalism. If the unfinished revolution was to be completed, according to
Sison, the social scientific theory of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung
thought must be applied, recognizing the leadership of the proletariat as well
as the organized leadership of the party in realizing the revolution.
Given the above, one could say that the text Philippine
Society and Revolution could be viewed as Sison’s attempts at applying the
basic tenets of radical ideology such as class analysis, mode of production,
revolutionary action, and similar ideas, to Philippine historiography.
Moreover, locating the communist movement in the revolutionary tradition of the
nation located the organization as the major force in advancing armed
revolutionary change. The discourse on the nation as undeveloped and in a state
of incomplete being due to the basic problems of imperialism, feudalism and
bureaucrat capitalism, was
12
presented as an outcome of the unfinished tasks of the
revolution. Nation and revolution was presented and represented as having
parallel, if not identical historical trajectories.
If the revolutionary tradition was presented as being rooted
in Philippine history, so did the presentation on the formation of other
Southeast Asian nations presented as conceived out of revolutionary
transformations. Thus,
Ang mga magigiting na mamamayan ng Bietnam, Laos, Taylandia,
Indonesya, Burma, Malaya at iba pa ay lumalaban sa imperyalismong Amerikano at
pyudalismo. Mapalad ang sambayanang Pilipino at Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas
na mapaloob sa sentro ng sigwa ng pandaigdigang rebolusyong proletaryo.6 (The
heroic peoples of Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Malaya others are
combating American imperialism and feudalism. The Filipino people and the
Communist Party of the Philippines are fortunate to be within the center of the
storm of international proletarian revolution…)
Southeast Asian nation formation was made possible because
of the revolutionary movements by the proletariat of the region. To Sison, the
region was at the center of the revolutionary storm that was brewing, and would
resonate in the international proletarian struggles worldwide. Southeast Asia
would serve as the fulcrum of the struggles and would contribute to define the
orientation of the global proletarian movement. It was because of such
strategic importance that imperialist forces, just like the forces found
internally in the Philippines, were as interested in retaining control of the
region as they were threatened by this revolutionary storm. Thus, contemporary
Southeast Asian history, according to Sison, was also characterized by
imperialist manipulation and control.
“Mula noong matapos and Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig,
sinuportahan ng papet na gubyerno ng Pilipinas ang mga pakana ng imperyalismong
US sa Asya tulad ng kampanyang anti-Tsina, digmaang mapanalakay sa Korea at sa
Indotsina, muling pagbuhay ng militarismong Hapones, kampanyang gawing lehitimo
ang “Malaysia” na inimbento ng mga imperyalismtang US at Britaniko, at
pagsuporta sa makahayop na pagsupil at pagsalakay ng pangkating Suharto sa
sambayanang Indones…” 7 (Since the end of the Second World War, the puppet
governments of the Philippine supported the designs of US Imperialism in Asia,
like the anti-China campaign, the war of aggression in Korea and Indochina, the
revival of Japanese militarism, the campaign to give legitimacy to “Malaysia”
that was an invention of US and British imperialism, and the support to the
brutal suppression and attacks of the Suharto clique to the Indonesian
peoples…”)
If the revolutionary nations were to be revered for their
historic roles, the imperialist designs of the US, Japan and Britain were
viewed as stumbling blocks for the realization of the formation of genuine
nations. In fact, most national democratic literature referred to
non-revolutionary Malaysia as artificially constructed and invented by
imperialist designs, and its evolutionary character as having been peacefully
formed after the granting of independence by the British was seen as an
unnatural invention. While Sison recognized the heroism of the peoples of
Malaya (referring to the communist movement in the peninsula), Malaysia was to
be denigrated as a colonial construct and invention. Suharto’s ascendancy to
the Indonesian presidency, on the other hand, was condemned as an attack
against the Indonesian peoples, as it was instrumental in the suppression of
the communist movement in that country, and was notoriously identified as
having been supported by the United States in its anti- communist campaigns.
13
the possible glorious future, with the eventual victory of the national
democratic revolution and its socialist perspective in the future. It is
interesting to note that this tripartite perspective in history seem to be a
localization of Marxism, influenced and patterned after the historical
tradition of Philippine ilustrados like Jose Rizal, and even reflected in the
revolutionary writings of Andres Bonifacio, who were both referred to by Sison
as reflective of the ideas of the national democratic revolution of the old
type.
In this formulation, the historical experience of nation
formation, however, was incomplete, if not totally aborted, because of the
unfinished revolution whose victory was overtaken by American colonialism and
neo-colonialism. Despite the granting of independence in 1946, puppet regimes
and imperialist control were retained, making the country backward and
semi-colonial.
The early revolutionary tradition of the Philippines was
projected as being that of the old type. This old type of revolution was
radical and revolutionary, yet lacking in its socialist perspective. The
reestablishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the emergence of
the ideological truths of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung Thought made the
Philippines experience a new type of national democratic revolution.
Two things could be stated as foremost in this line of analysis.
One is the idea of two-line struggle maintained and retained in the course of
interpreting Philippine national history. Revolutionary movements in the past
succeeded or failed as a result of the struggles between correct and incorrect
ideas. The failure of the early Philippine revolution was due not only to the
annexation of the Philippines by the United States, but also because the
collaboration of the ruling feudal lords and comprador bourgeoisie, that
constituted the social base of American imperialism in the country. The ruling
elites also collaborated with the Japanese in the latter period of the Second
World War, while the post war, “independence” period were marked by the
ascendancy of what he termed as puppet regimes. The need to “rectify the errors
and rebuild the party”, the line of analysis that justified the reestablishment
of the communist party, was a result of the historical trajectory of the two
line struggle. The persistence of imperialist controls, feudal structures, and
the general malaise of society characterized by bureaucrat capitalism, remained
basic problems that should be addressed. The revolution was unfinished, semi-
colonialism and semi-feudalism remained the basic characteristics of the
conditions of Philippine society, and it was the task of the communist party to
realize the completion of the Philippine revolution to its fullest.
Related to this was the idea that the revolutionary
tradition in Philippine history pointed to the direction of the necessity of
armed struggle and the historical inevitability of the revolution. Tracing the
trajectory of Philippine history as necessarily characterized by the historical
tradition of armed revolutionary movements, the realization of the historical
experience of nation formation and the completion of the national democratic
revolution must be realized as an historical inevitability, if only to complete
the revolutionary cycle of society. Revolts and rebellions against imperialism
and colonialism were constant features of Philippine history, according to
Sison. Imperialism was the main enemy of national liberation and was presented
as the main force that maintained the social base of feudalism, and the
political power of the parasitic ruling class that thrived on bureaucrat
capitalism. If the unfinished revolution was to be completed, according to
Sison, the social scientific theory of Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung
thought must be applied, recognizing the leadership of the proletariat as well
as the organized leadership of the party in realizing the revolution.
Given the above, one could say that the text Philippine
Society and Revolution could be viewed as Sison’s attempts at applying the
basic tenets of radical ideology such as class analysis, mode of production,
revolutionary action, and similar ideas, to Philippine historiography.
Moreover, locating the communist movement in the revolutionary tradition of the
nation located the organization as the major force in advancing armed
revolutionary change. The discourse on the nation as undeveloped and in a state
of incomplete being due to the basic problems of imperialism, feudalism and
bureaucrat capitalism, was
presented as an outcome of the unfinished tasks of the
revolution. Nation and revolution was presented and represented as having
parallel, if not identical historical trajectories.
If the revolutionary tradition was presented as being rooted
in Philippine history, so did the presentation on the formation of other
Southeast Asian nations presented as conceived out of revolutionary transformations.
Thus,
Ang mga magigiting na mamamayan ng Bietnam, Laos, Taylandia,
Indonesya, Burma, Malaya at iba pa ay lumalaban sa imperyalismong Amerikano at
pyudalismo. Mapalad ang sambayanang Pilipino at Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas
na mapaloob sa sentro ng sigwa ng pandaigdigang rebolusyong proletaryo.6 (The
heroic peoples of Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, Malaya others are
combating American imperialism and feudalism. The Filipino people and the
Communist Party of the Philippines are fortunate to be within the center of the
storm of international proletarian revolution…)
Southeast Asian nation formation was made possible because
of the revolutionary movements by the proletariat of the region. To Sison, the
region was at the center of the revolutionary storm that was brewing, and would
resonate in the international proletarian struggles worldwide. Southeast Asia
would serve as the fulcrum of the struggles and would contribute to define the
orientation of the global proletarian movement. It was because of such
strategic importance that imperialist forces, just like the forces found
internally in the Philippines, were as interested in retaining control of the
region as they were threatened by this revolutionary storm. Thus, contemporary
Southeast Asian history, according to Sison, was also characterized by
imperialist manipulation and control.
“Mula noong matapos and Ikalawang Digmaang Pandaigdig,
sinuportahan ng papet na gubyerno ng Pilipinas ang mga pakana ng imperyalismong
US sa Asya tulad ng kampanyang anti-Tsina, digmaang mapanalakay sa Korea at sa
Indotsina, muling pagbuhay ng militarismong Hapones, kampanyang gawing lehitimo
ang “Malaysia” na inimbento ng mga imperyalismtang US at Britaniko, at
pagsuporta sa makahayop na pagsupil at pagsalakay ng pangkating Suharto sa
sambayanang Indones…” 7 (Since the end of the Second World War, the puppet
governments of the Philippine supported the designs of US Imperialism in Asia,
like the anti-China campaign, the war of aggression in Korea and Indochina, the
revival of Japanese militarism, the campaign to give legitimacy to “Malaysia”
that was an invention of US and British imperialism, and the support to the
brutal suppression and attacks of the Suharto clique to the Indonesian
peoples…”)
If the revolutionary nations were to be revered for their
historic roles, the imperialist designs of the US, Japan and Britain were
viewed as stumbling blocks for the realization of the formation of genuine
nations. In fact, most national democratic literature referred to
non-revolutionary Malaysia as artificially constructed and invented by
imperialist designs, and its evolutionary character as having been peacefully
formed after the granting of independence by the British was seen as an
unnatural invention. While Sison recognized the heroism of the peoples of
Malaya (referring to the communist movement in the peninsula), Malaysia was to
be denigrated as a colonial construct and invention. Suharto’s ascendancy to
the Indonesian presidency, on the other hand, was condemned as an attack
against the Indonesian peoples, as it was instrumental in the suppression of
the communist movement in that country, and was notoriously identified as
having been supported by the United States in its anti- communist campaigns.
13 This discourse on nation and revolution in Southeast
Asian communist discourse was not unique to Sison. The discourse on the
unfinished revolution was also to be found in the writings of D.N. Aidit. As
one expert on Indonesian communism argues,
The national revolution, Aidit argued, was not yet finished:
it had not totally failed, but it had been blocked in both its national and
social aspects, leaving Indonesia in a ‘semi-colonial and semi-feudal’ limbo.8
While Indonesia was successful in booting out the Dutch,
nationalizing its industries, and unilaterally abrogating the unequal and
traitorous agreements with the Netherlands, US and Dutch imperialism still
dominated the economy and held back the development of the national industry.9
Similar to what Sison would formulate, Aidit would advance the idea of
Indonesia being a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. To him, US imperialism
has become the most dangerous, the No. 1 enemy of the Indonesian people, and
feudal exploitation characterized the nature of Indonesian rural society. 10
While both Sison and Aidit agreed on the analysis of their
respective societies as semi-feudal and semi-colonial, they differed
essentially on the conduct of revolutionary transformation that the countries
should take. Being an open, legal party with organized mass base and
significant influence on the government, the PKI was projecting itself as ready
and able to take on the responsibilities of national administration, and
therefore, would not resort to revolutionary violence for so long as it was not
attacked first by the ruling classes, thus,
In the struggle to realize their political convictions, the
communists will not use force while the ruling class still leaves the peaceful,
the parliamentary way open. If there is the use of force, the spilling of
blood, a civil war, it will not be the communists who start them but the ruling
class itself…”11
The Indonesian debacle, while not discussed in Philippine
Society and Revolution, must have greatly affected Sison’s conviction of the
inevitability of revolutionary violence and the necessity of revolutionary
action. Conscious of the catastrophe and disaster that was the experience of
Indonesian communists in 1965, Sison must have realized the need to be
uncompromising in terms of putting forward the necessity for armed revolution
as a basic characteristic of the Philippine revolution. The actuations of the
Suharto government towards the communists, and its parallel policies of pro-
Americanism and anti-communism that reverberated in the policies of other
Southeast Asian authoritarian regimes including the Philippines’ Ferdinand
Marcos, must have affected the analysis of Sison and firmed up his belief in
armed revolutionary change.
The other comparable item that could be raised was the
periodization of their respective national histories as presented in the
revolutionary writings of Sison and Aidit. Most of the writings on Philippine
history by Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines present the
following component periods in Philippine history: The People Upon the Coming
of the Spanish colonialists; Spanish colonialism and Feudalism; the Philippine
Revolution of 1896; The Filipino-American War; the Colonial Rule of US
Imperialism; the People’s Struggle against Japanese imperialism; the present
puppet Republic of the Philippines; and the Reestablishment of the Communist
Party of the Philippines. This mode of historical interpretation, while clearly
applying Marxist formulations, were still reflective of the historiographical
tradition found in most Philippine historiographic literature, and whose main
points of periodic division was used even by non-Marxist historians, save for
the last period. The difference was in its attempt to provide an outline into
the development and evolution of the Philippines in historical terms – into a
semi-feudal and semi-colonial society with emphasis on the trajectory of
history that was projected to gain full fruition with the accomplishments of
the revolutionary struggles, culminating in the reestablishment of the
communist party.
The Indonesian historical periodization, on the other hand,
had a more manifest orientation in terms of applying Marxist historical
materialist notions of social development. Most reviews of the historical
development of Indonesia divide the nation’s historical periods into seven
parts including, the period of primitive communes; period of slave owning
system; feudal society; feudal and colonial society; colonial and semi-feudal
society; independence and semi-feudal society; semi-colonial and semi-feudal
society.12 It must be noted that common to both periodization was the
culmination of the historical development of society as a semi-feudal and
semi-colonial one, with the revolutionary experience becoming unfinished in the
process. Both justified the continuation of the revolution, with Sison
emphasizing more the armed component of the revolution, while Aidit emphasizing
the evolution of the political plans of action of the PKI under various
circumstances.
Specific Characteristics of Southeast Asian Peoples’ Wars
Another indication of the application of the principles of
Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung thought to local condition was the document
written by Sison entitled “Specific Characteristics of Our People’s War.”13 The
document tried to offer lessons of revolutionary practice for movements in
countries that were also characterized as archipelagic.
While the other countries that were able to attain
revolutionary victories through protracted people’s war did so by establishing
revolutionary bases in the continental rear and encircling the major cities
from there, the Philippines did not have such a terrain that was conducive for
revolutionary warfare.
“…our small country is cut off by seas from neighboring
countries, particularly those friendly to our revolutionary cause. The
Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian peoples are more fortunate than us in one
sense because they share land borders with China, which serves as their
powerful rear.14
While recognizing the particularities of the Philippine
terrain being archipelagic, Sison brought emphasis on the revolutionary
potential of such specific geographic characteristics. Guerrilla fronts could
be created in the major islands forcing the enemy to disperse its forces and
prevent it from concentrating its troops on major base areas. Mountain ranges
that characterized most of the features of the major islands could serve as
guerrilla sanctuaries and bases from which guerrilla units could maintain
political and military influence on a number of provinces bordering its range.
This line of analysis was something unique to Sison’s
assessment of the Philippine communist movement. Even the Indonesian
communists, with its larger archipelagic terrain, did not emphasize such unique
geographical characteristics. The reason might lie in the emphasis on armed
revolution on the part of the Philippines, and engagement with an established
regime, on the part of Indonesia. The archipelagic nature of the Indonesian
struggle was mentioned only in the idea of building the PKI as a nationwide mass
party, but the specific concern over such diverse geographic conditions led to
different conclusions. Contemporaneous Indonesian party documents seemed to
emphasize more the challenge of integrating the many nationalities and citizens
of foreign descent into the revolutionary fold of the PKI as a mass party, and
that emphasized the successes of the party in terms of highlighting the policy
of striving for complete equality of rights for the nationalities. With this,
the two traditions diverged, with one emphasizing the physical division of
Philippine society according to the many islands and mountains that create
diverse and separate communities, while the other addressing the issue of
nationality and citizenship in the struggle. In both instances, the particular,
local condition was given importance in advancing the strategies for
revolutionary struggle, and the more universal Marxist categorization such as
class being regarded more as a given. The differences may also reveal the
manner on which the two revolutions were to be carried out. In the Philippine
case, the geographic feature of the terrain was important for this would set
the stage for the material conditions of the
15 This discourse on nation and revolution in Southeast
Asian communist discourse was not unique to Sison. The discourse on the
unfinished revolution was also to be found in the writings of D.N. Aidit. As
one expert on Indonesian communism argues,
The national revolution, Aidit argued, was not yet finished:
it had not totally failed, but it had been blocked in both its national and
social aspects, leaving Indonesia in a ‘semi-colonial and semi-feudal’ limbo.8
While Indonesia was successful in booting out the Dutch,
nationalizing its industries, and unilaterally abrogating the unequal and
traitorous agreements with the Netherlands, US and Dutch imperialism still
dominated the economy and held back the development of the national industry.9
Similar to what Sison would formulate, Aidit would advance the idea of
Indonesia being a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. To him, US imperialism
has become the most dangerous, the No. 1 enemy of the Indonesian people, and
feudal exploitation characterized the nature of Indonesian rural society. 10
While both Sison and Aidit agreed on the analysis of their
respective societies as semi-feudal and semi-colonial, they differed
essentially on the conduct of revolutionary transformation that the countries
should take. Being an open, legal party with organized mass base and
significant influence on the government, the PKI was projecting itself as ready
and able to take on the responsibilities of national administration, and
therefore, would not resort to revolutionary violence for so long as it was not
attacked first by the ruling classes, thus,
In the struggle to realize their political convictions, the
communists will not use force while the ruling class still leaves the peaceful,
the parliamentary way open. If there is the use of force, the spilling of
blood, a civil war, it will not be the communists who start them but the ruling
class itself…”11
The Indonesian debacle, while not discussed in Philippine
Society and Revolution, must have greatly affected Sison’s conviction of the
inevitability of revolutionary violence and the necessity of revolutionary action.
Conscious of the catastrophe and disaster that was the experience of Indonesian
communists in 1965, Sison must have realized the need to be uncompromising in
terms of putting forward the necessity for armed revolution as a basic
characteristic of the Philippine revolution. The actuations of the Suharto
government towards the communists, and its parallel policies of pro-
Americanism and anti-communism that reverberated in the policies of other
Southeast Asian authoritarian regimes including the Philippines’ Ferdinand
Marcos, must have affected the analysis of Sison and firmed up his belief in
armed revolutionary change.
The other comparable item that could be raised was the
periodization of their respective national histories as presented in the revolutionary
writings of Sison and Aidit. Most of the writings on Philippine history by
Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines present the following
component periods in Philippine history: The People Upon the Coming of the
Spanish colonialists; Spanish colonialism and Feudalism; the Philippine
Revolution of 1896; The Filipino-American War; the Colonial Rule of US
Imperialism; the People’s Struggle against Japanese imperialism; the present
puppet Republic of the Philippines; and the Reestablishment of the Communist
Party of the Philippines. This mode of historical interpretation, while clearly
applying Marxist formulations, were still reflective of the historiographical
tradition found in most Philippine historiographic literature, and whose main
points of periodic division was used even by non-Marxist historians, save for
the last period. The difference was in its attempt to provide an outline into
the development and evolution of the Philippines in historical terms – into a
semi-feudal and semi-colonial society with emphasis on the trajectory of
history that was projected to gain full fruition with the accomplishments of
the revolutionary struggles, culminating in the reestablishment of the
communist party.
The Indonesian historical periodization, on the other hand,
had a more manifest orientation in terms of applying Marxist historical
materialist notions of social development. Most reviews of the historical
development of Indonesia divide the nation’s historical periods into seven
parts including, the period of primitive communes; period of slave owning
system; feudal society; feudal and colonial society; colonial and semi-feudal
society; independence and semi-feudal society; semi-colonial and semi-feudal
society.12 It must be noted that common to both periodization was the
culmination of the historical development of society as a semi-feudal and
semi-colonial one, with the revolutionary experience becoming unfinished in the
process. Both justified the continuation of the revolution, with Sison emphasizing
more the armed component of the revolution, while Aidit emphasizing the
evolution of the political plans of action of the PKI under various
circumstances.
Specific Characteristics of Southeast Asian Peoples’ Wars
Another indication of the application of the principles of
Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung thought to local condition was the document
written by Sison entitled “Specific Characteristics of Our People’s War.”13 The
document tried to offer lessons of revolutionary practice for movements in countries
that were also characterized as archipelagic.
While the other countries that were able to attain
revolutionary victories through protracted people’s war did so by establishing
revolutionary bases in the continental rear and encircling the major cities
from there, the Philippines did not have such a terrain that was conducive for
revolutionary warfare.
“…our small country is cut off by seas from neighboring
countries, particularly those friendly to our revolutionary cause. The
Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian peoples are more fortunate than us in one
sense because they share land borders with China, which serves as their
powerful rear.14
While recognizing the particularities of the Philippine
terrain being archipelagic, Sison brought emphasis on the revolutionary
potential of such specific geographic characteristics. Guerrilla fronts could
be created in the major islands forcing the enemy to disperse its forces and
prevent it from concentrating its troops on major base areas. Mountain ranges
that characterized most of the features of the major islands could serve as
guerrilla sanctuaries and bases from which guerrilla units could maintain
political and military influence on a number of provinces bordering its range.
This line of analysis was something unique to Sison’s
assessment of the Philippine communist movement. Even the Indonesian
communists, with its larger archipelagic terrain, did not emphasize such unique
geographical characteristics. The reason might lie in the emphasis on armed
revolution on the part of the Philippines, and engagement with an established
regime, on the part of Indonesia. The archipelagic nature of the Indonesian
struggle was mentioned only in the idea of building the PKI as a nationwide
mass party, but the specific concern over such diverse geographic conditions
led to different conclusions. Contemporaneous Indonesian party documents seemed
to emphasize more the challenge of integrating the many nationalities and
citizens of foreign descent into the revolutionary fold of the PKI as a mass
party, and that emphasized the successes of the party in terms of highlighting
the policy of striving for complete equality of rights for the nationalities.
With this, the two traditions diverged, with one emphasizing the physical
division of Philippine society according to the many islands and mountains that
create diverse and separate communities, while the other addressing the issue
of nationality and citizenship in the struggle. In both instances, the
particular, local condition was given importance in advancing the strategies
for revolutionary struggle, and the more universal Marxist categorization such
as class being regarded more as a given. The differences may also reveal the
manner on which the two revolutions were to be carried out. In the Philippine
case, the geographic feature of the terrain was important for this would set
the stage for the material conditions of the
launching of an armed revolution. In the Indonesian situation, the question of
diverse nationalities and citizenship of the constituent populations need to be
addressed in building a mass base for a nationwide open, legal political party.
So concerned was the PKI about the projecting the party as a mass national
party that it opted to “place the interests of class and of the party below the
national interest, or place the national interest above the interests of class
and of the party.”16
Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines also tried
to project the revolutionary optimism that characterized most of their writings.
Locating the Philippine revolution in Southeast Asia had always been a major
feature of his radical writings.
“…but all other persistent armed struggles in Southeast
Asia, of which our people’s war is one, promise to eventually grow in
significance and effectiveness as the turmoil of the capitalist system worsens
and US imperialism declines further. The revolutionary armed struggles in
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos have served to stress the fact that since after
World War II, it has become possible for the peoples of the colonial and
semicolonial countries in the East to develop over a long period of time big
and small revolutionary base areas, wage long term revolutionary wars, in which
the cities are encircled from the countryside and then gradually to advance on
the cities and win nationwide victory. 17
The Urgent Tasks of Southeast Asian Revolutions
The revolutionary writings of Sison were clearly influenced
by the emergence of new political forces and tendencies in the region. The
development of pro-US authoritarian regimes would mean more repressive
anti-communist governments in the region, like Marcos for the Philippines, and
Suharto for Indonesia. In the document “Our Urgent Tasks” Sison outlined the
immediate tasks of the revolutionary forces given to the new developments. The
strategic importance of armed struggle was a constant factor mentioned in all
portions of the document. The development of the armed revolutionary movement
in the countryside; the revolutionary mass movement in the cities; as well as
the establishment of an antifascist, anti feudal and anti imperialist united
front movement were all tasks of Philippine communists living under a period of
heightened political repression. The three weapons of the revolution – the
party, the people’s army and the united front – were all given due importance
in the document as instruments that would assure the victory of the national
democratic revolution with a socialist perspective in the Philippines.
The debacles of the revolutionary movements in the region
such as the catastrophic defeats of the communist movements in Indonesia,
Malaysia, and Thailand were never mentioned in the document. Though it was
clear that the Philippine communist movement have realized the consequences of
the consolidation of pro-US regimes in the region, it chose to maintain its
revolutionary optimism by emphasizing the communist victories of other
countries. In contemporary Southeast Asian experiences of nation formation,
“Malaysia” was to be condemned as an artificial invention of imperialist
countries like the US and Britain, Indonesia initially was the hotbed of
revolutionary activities but was aborted by the coup of Suharto, while the
nations of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were to be regarded as models in the
realization of revolutionary victories. They served as a beacon of light to
socialist construction according to Sison, and had proven that small nations
can be recognized as capable of contributing to world revolutions. In the words
of the communist party,
“The astounding revolutionary victories of the Indochinese
peoples of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos have signaled the irreversible decline
of US Imperialism in Southeast Asia, in the whole of Asia, in the whole world
and it its very homegrounds. We are enthusiastic that the peoples of small
countries can deal so stunning a blow to US imperialism and make so great a
contribution to world revolutions.18
Southeast Asian socialist revolutions, therefore, could
still be launched despite its debacles and problems. The document stated its
stand for the continuation of the revolution as an historical imperative that
should define the nature of the contributions of the region to world socialist
revolution.
Maintaining the Stand for Socialism
While the three documents highlighted the importance of
particularizing the conditions of the Philippine national democratic movement
to local and Southeast Asian conditions, mention must also be made of the
Party’s attempts to continue explaining to itself and to the broader masses,
its political stance on various issues of contemporary concern both in the
local, domestic Philippine conditions, and in the international front. Foremost
in this were the developments in China, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union, as well as current developments in the revolutionary societies in
Southeast Asia.
In the party document “Stand for Socialism against Modern
Revisionism” 19 released by the Central Committee in 1992, the party reaffirmed
its basic principles and blamed modern revisionism for the debacles experienced
by attempts at socialist construction in other countries and regions of the
world. What failed, according to this analysis, was not socialism, but modern
revisionism. Kruschov, Breszhnev and Gorbachov all created conditions in the
former Soviet Union that made possible the eventual collapse of bureaucratic
oriented orders that have already capitulated to the capitalist system even
during the time that they were the dominant political force in the Soviet
Union.
The collapse of the regimes in the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, according to the document, were inevitable, considering that
these societies’ deviation from the basic tenets of Marxism, in seeking
accommodation with the imperialist countries, and with the advancement of
revisionist ideals that could be considered as treasonous to the ideals of the
international socialist movement. This line of argumentation was consistent
with the reading that the Soviet Union was a “social imperialist state” and
should be considered equally as an enemy of the socialist man just like the
imperialist forces of the United States. While the document credited the Soviet
Union for its support in the revolutionary wars in Vietnam, Nicaragua and
Angola, it was unequivocal in its criticism towards the Soviet policies in
Afghanistan and Cambodia and was extremely critical of the way it promoted and
participated in the arms race with the United States.
It also regarded Soviet support to Vietnam as positive
commitment of aid to a fraternal socialist movement, it nonetheless was
critical of the Soviet’s low priority and regard to the Vietnamese revolution,
stating that even during the Kruschov era, the Soviets prioritized the selling
of arms to other nations who could pay more than the Vietnamese, even to the
point of hesitating to give limited support to the Indochinese revolution, and
struggling not to endorse the revolutionary armed struggle of the Vietnamese
peoples.20
While the document appeared to be an elaboration of the Soviet
failures as external to Philippine radical and revolutionary movement, one
could be more appreciative of the uncompromising criticism to “Soviet social
imperialism” if one was to locate the ideological formulation of the party in
the history of its development. Sison was expelled from the old party and
sought to reestablish a new one because of the Philippine local communist
groups’ own internal debates. While the old party remained loyal to the Soviet
Union and its allies in waging the revolution, the reestablished party under
Sison sought to redirect the ideological currents of the movement towards Mao
Tsetung Thought. It should also be noted that the reestablished party never saw
any positive move at establishing fraternal relations with the CPSU when the
Soviet Union recognized both the martial law regime under Ferdinand Marcos, and
the old Philippine communist party that sought to be accommodated in the
martial law government, while the newly reestablished party remained vigorously
anti-Marcos and against martial law. The old party and the CPSU’s analysis that
the Marcos regime was not an extension of American imperialist
17 launching of an armed revolution. In the Indonesian
situation, the question of diverse nationalities and citizenship of the constituent
populations need to be addressed in building a mass base for a nationwide open,
legal political party. So concerned was the PKI about the projecting the party
as a mass national party that it opted to “place the interests of class and of
the party below the national interest, or place the national interest above the
interests of class and of the party.”16
Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines also tried
to project the revolutionary optimism that characterized most of their
writings. Locating the Philippine revolution in Southeast Asia had always been
a major feature of his radical writings.
“…but all other persistent armed struggles in Southeast
Asia, of which our people’s war is one, promise to eventually grow in
significance and effectiveness as the turmoil of the capitalist system worsens
and US imperialism declines further. The revolutionary armed struggles in
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos have served to stress the fact that since after
World War II, it has become possible for the peoples of the colonial and
semicolonial countries in the East to develop over a long period of time big
and small revolutionary base areas, wage long term revolutionary wars, in which
the cities are encircled from the countryside and then gradually to advance on
the cities and win nationwide victory. 17
The Urgent Tasks of Southeast Asian Revolutions
The revolutionary writings of Sison were clearly influenced
by the emergence of new political forces and tendencies in the region. The
development of pro-US authoritarian regimes would mean more repressive
anti-communist governments in the region, like Marcos for the Philippines, and
Suharto for Indonesia. In the document “Our Urgent Tasks” Sison outlined the
immediate tasks of the revolutionary forces given to the new developments. The
strategic importance of armed struggle was a constant factor mentioned in all
portions of the document. The development of the armed revolutionary movement
in the countryside; the revolutionary mass movement in the cities; as well as the
establishment of an antifascist, anti feudal and anti imperialist united front
movement were all tasks of Philippine communists living under a period of
heightened political repression. The three weapons of the revolution – the
party, the people’s army and the united front – were all given due importance
in the document as instruments that would assure the victory of the national
democratic revolution with a socialist perspective in the Philippines.
The debacles of the revolutionary movements in the region
such as the catastrophic defeats of the communist movements in Indonesia,
Malaysia, and Thailand were never mentioned in the document. Though it was
clear that the Philippine communist movement have realized the consequences of
the consolidation of pro-US regimes in the region, it chose to maintain its
revolutionary optimism by emphasizing the communist victories of other
countries. In contemporary Southeast Asian experiences of nation formation,
“Malaysia” was to be condemned as an artificial invention of imperialist
countries like the US and Britain, Indonesia initially was the hotbed of
revolutionary activities but was aborted by the coup of Suharto, while the
nations of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were to be regarded as models in the
realization of revolutionary victories. They served as a beacon of light to
socialist construction according to Sison, and had proven that small nations
can be recognized as capable of contributing to world revolutions. In the words
of the communist party,
“The astounding revolutionary victories of the Indochinese
peoples of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos have signaled the irreversible decline
of US Imperialism in Southeast Asia, in the whole of Asia, in the whole world
and it its very homegrounds. We are enthusiastic that the peoples of small
countries can deal so stunning a blow to US imperialism and make so great a
contribution to world revolutions.18
16
Southeast Asian socialist revolutions, therefore, could
still be launched despite its debacles and problems. The document stated its
stand for the continuation of the revolution as an historical imperative that
should define the nature of the contributions of the region to world socialist
revolution.
Maintaining the Stand for Socialism
While the three documents highlighted the importance of
particularizing the conditions of the Philippine national democratic movement
to local and Southeast Asian conditions, mention must also be made of the
Party’s attempts to continue explaining to itself and to the broader masses,
its political stance on various issues of contemporary concern both in the
local, domestic Philippine conditions, and in the international front. Foremost
in this were the developments in China, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union, as well as current developments in the revolutionary societies in
Southeast Asia.
In the party document “Stand for Socialism against Modern
Revisionism” 19 released by the Central Committee in 1992, the party reaffirmed
its basic principles and blamed modern revisionism for the debacles experienced
by attempts at socialist construction in other countries and regions of the
world. What failed, according to this analysis, was not socialism, but modern
revisionism. Kruschov, Breszhnev and Gorbachov all created conditions in the
former Soviet Union that made possible the eventual collapse of bureaucratic
oriented orders that have already capitulated to the capitalist system even
during the time that they were the dominant political force in the Soviet
Union.
The collapse of the regimes in the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, according to the document, were inevitable, considering that
these societies’ deviation from the basic tenets of Marxism, in seeking
accommodation with the imperialist countries, and with the advancement of revisionist
ideals that could be considered as treasonous to the ideals of the
international socialist movement. This line of argumentation was consistent
with the reading that the Soviet Union was a “social imperialist state” and
should be considered equally as an enemy of the socialist man just like the
imperialist forces of the United States. While the document credited the Soviet
Union for its support in the revolutionary wars in Vietnam, Nicaragua and
Angola, it was unequivocal in its criticism towards the Soviet policies in
Afghanistan and Cambodia and was extremely critical of the way it promoted and
participated in the arms race with the United States.
It also regarded Soviet support to Vietnam as positive
commitment of aid to a fraternal socialist movement, it nonetheless was
critical of the Soviet’s low priority and regard to the Vietnamese revolution,
stating that even during the Kruschov era, the Soviets prioritized the selling
of arms to other nations who could pay more than the Vietnamese, even to the
point of hesitating to give limited support to the Indochinese revolution, and
struggling not to endorse the revolutionary armed struggle of the Vietnamese
peoples.20
While the document appeared to be an elaboration of the Soviet failures as
external to Philippine radical and revolutionary movement, one could be more
appreciative of the uncompromising criticism to “Soviet social imperialism” if
one was to locate the ideological formulation of the party in the history of
its development. Sison was expelled from the old party and sought to
reestablish a new one because of the Philippine local communist groups’ own
internal debates. While the old party remained loyal to the Soviet Union and
its allies in waging the revolution, the reestablished party under Sison sought
to redirect the ideological currents of the movement towards Mao Tsetung
Thought. It should also be noted that the reestablished party never saw any
positive move at establishing fraternal relations with the CPSU when the Soviet
Union recognized both the martial law regime under Ferdinand Marcos, and the
old Philippine communist party that sought to be accommodated in the martial
law government, while the newly reestablished party remained vigorously
anti-Marcos and against martial law. The old party and the CPSU’s analysis that
the Marcos regime was not an extension of American imperialist
17 rule, but a political representative of the local
national bourgeoisie, did not create better conditions for rapproachement.
In fact, even the internal debates that wracked the national
democratic movement in the period before 1992 focused not on the problems
related to the survival of the regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
but still to the old debate that these regimes were no longer essentially
socialist because of their modern revisionist orientations and perspectives.
These internal debates which led to the second major split in the Philippine
communist movement, also focused on the suggested party policy of some formerly
internal rival camps that sought to recognize the Soviet Union, apologize for
the CPP’s labeling of it as a social imperialist and modern revisionist, and
withdrawal of its criticism of Soviet policies on Cambodia and Afghanistan.21
While the Indonesian debacle was no longer mentioned in the
document, one can still tangentially advance the two parties’ common criticism
of Right and “Left” opportunism within the party, and the scourge of modern
revisionism as potential internal threats to the integrity of the socialist
movement in Southeast Asia.22
“Stand for Socialism” was a testament to the Philippine
national democratic movement’s desire to retain relavant vanguard role in the
revolutionary movement in Southeast Asia. Being the oldest existing armed
communist movement still in operation in the region, the Communist Party of the
Philippines seeks to redefine its role and its modes of analysis to national
and international situations. With the publication of the document, the
movement sought to gain recognition that radical nationalist ideas of the
socialist type, would still be an idea to reckon with, in the light of the
changing terrain of knowledge production and political action in Southeast
Asia.
Postscript: Locating the Nation, Rediscovering Radical
Historiography
The foregoing discussion sought to relocate the tradition of
radical nationalist historiography in the Philippines as part of the
development of a generation of local scholarship produced and utilized not only
in the Philippines, but also in Southeast Asia. Establishing personal
connections and networks, like the experience of Sison in his brief but
meaningful visit to Indonesia, pointed to the direction of analysis that the
production of knowledge – while attractive to be interpreted as a product of
ideological revisioning of intellectuals, ideologues, and academics were often
formed out of personal experiences, stimulating intellectual relationships, and
mutual recognition of one’s capacity to contribute to the refinement of theory
and idea.
With the foundation of ideas already in place, it was but a continuity of the
deepening of the intellectual process that made Sison advance certain lines of
analysis as pertaining to immediate issues being raised to him and his
immediate environment. The many formulations on the varied experiences of
nation formation of the countries in the region; the different modes of
revolutionary action; the attempts at historicizing experiences and movements;
the retreats and advances made in the application of theory to political
action; the many vicissitudes and complexities of international relations all
sought to play a significant role in the shaping of Sison’s radical nationalist
outlook.
One may advance the idea that the recognition of the need to
establish international linkages and network, as shown in the experience of
Sison and the formulation of his ideas, need not necessarily emanate from the
official institutional centers of knowledge production. Sison’s exposure to
Indonesian politics, as well as the development of his appreciation to
Southeast Asian developments, ripened at the time when he was no longer
connected with any formal academic institution. His major premises on the
conditions of Southeast Asian nations, as well as his analyses of the
trajectories that these nations will take in the future, were at times proven
wrong, but in other instances remained relevant to the study of the region.
With the development of an international political and economic system
characterized by
18
the preeminence of a single superpower, Sison’s ideas seemed
to gain new momentum in reformulating our understanding of the structural
development of the experiences of Southeast Asian nations. With the rising tide
of democratization movements, the growing interconnectedness of the region’s
economies, and the social and economic realities that was characteristic of
what Sison would view as imperialist globalization, there is a growing
relevance to the questions and issues originally raised by Sison, and his
Indonesian contemporaries. The degree on which previously considered universal
theories and historiographic tendencies were localized as they were put into
practice also tells a lot about the development of local knowledge production
and scholarship in the region. While Marxism, Leninism and Mao Tsetung Thought
were regarded as non-Souhteast Asian in origin, some radical nationalist
theorists and activists sought its localization to realize local theory
building and knowledge expansion. Radical historiography, nationalism, and
socialism, at least among those who remained within the Philippine national
democratic circles, is still retained to make its claims to stake in its proper
place in the production of knowledge and development of scholarship in the
region.
Notes
1 Amado Guerrero. Philippine Society and Revolution. Oakland:
International Association of Filipino Patriots, 1979.
2 The adopted nom de guerre of Jose Maria Sison, founder of the reestablished
Communist Party of the Philippines in 1968. The two names will be used
interchangeably in this paper.
3 Jose Ma. Sison. Rebolusyong Pilipino: Tanaw Mula sa Loob.
Quezon City: Lagda Publishing, 1994,
33. See also Rosca, Ninotchka. Jose Ma. Sison: At Home in the
World Portrait of a Revolutionary. Manila: Ibon Books,
2004. pp. 13, 40.
4 Kathleen Weekley. The Communist Party of the Philippines, 1968-1993: A
Story of its Theory and Practice. Quezon City: University of the
Philippines Press, 2001, p. 21. See also Justus van der Kroef, “The Philippine
Maoists,” Orbis XVI, (4), winter, 1973, p. 910. I am grateful to Victor
Sumsky for leading me to this analysis. See Victor Sumsky.”Philippine
Society and Revolution” in the Early 1970s and Now Through Russian Eyes,”
paper presented to the 7th International
Conference on Philippine Studies, Leiden, the Netherlands, June 2004.
5 Philippine Society and Revolution, op. cit., 1-61.
6 Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. “Programa para sa Demokratikong
Rebolusyon ng Bayan sa Pilipinas,” Kongreso ng Muling Pagtatatag ng Partido
Komunista ng Pilipinas, 26 Disyembre 1968, in Unang Bahagi ng Intermedyang
Kurso ng Partido: Pagbubuo ng Partido. Manila: Pambansang Komisyong
ng Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000.
.
7 Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, Ikalawang
Aklat ng Batayang Kurso ng Partido: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas.
Manila: Palimbagang Sentral ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, 1998.
8 Ruth McVey, “Nationalism, Revolution and Organization in Indonesian
Communism,” in Daniel S. Lev and Ruth McVey, (eds.). Making
Indonesia. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996. 107.9Aidit,
D.N. The Indonesian Revolution and the Immediate Tasks of the Communist
Party of Indonesia. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1964, pp. 8-9.
10 Op. cit., 10-12.
11 As cited in Donald Hindley, The Communist Party of Indonesia.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966, pp. 126-27.
12 Aidit, D.N. The Indonesian Revolution and the Immediate Tasks of the
Communist Party of Indonesia. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1964, pp.
2-3.
13 Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. “Specific Characteristics of Our People’s
War,” in Ikalawang Bahagi ng Intermedyang Kurso ng Partido: Pagbubuo ng
Hukbo. Manila: Pambansang Komisyong ng Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000.
19
14 Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. “Specific Characteristics
of Our People’s War,” in Ikalawang Bahagi ng Intermedyang Kurso ng
Partido: Pagbubuo ng Hukbo. Manila: Pambansang Komisyong ng
Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000, 48
15Aidit, D.N. The Indonesian Revolution and the Immediate Tasks of the
Communist Party of Indonesia. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1964, pp.
23.
16 Hindley, op. cit., 126
17Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. “Specific Characteristics of Our People’s
War,” in Ikalawang Bahagi ng Intermedyang Kurso ng Partido: Pagbubuo ng
Hukbo. Manila: Pambansang Komisyong ng Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000, 71-72.
18Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. “Our Urgent Tasks,”in Unang Bahagi ng
Intermedyang Kurso ng Partido: Pagbubuo ng Partido. Manila:
Pambansang Komisyong ng Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000, 95.
19Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. “Manindigan Para sa Sosyalismo laban sa
Modernong Rebisyonismo,” in Batayang Kurso ng Partido, Aklat III (Ikalawang
Bahagi). Manila: Palimbagang Sentral ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas,
2001. 155-209.
20 “Manindigan, op. cit.,… p. 175
21 Ibid., 161
22 See Aidit, op. Cit.
Bibliography
Aidit, D.N. The Indonesian Revolution and the
Immediate Tasks of the Communist Party of Indonesia. Peking: Foreign
Languages Press, 1964.
Chapman, William. Inside the Philippine
Revolution. New York: WW Norton and Co., 1987.
Davis, Leonard. Revolutionary Struggle in the
Philippines. London: McMillan, 1989.
Guerrero, Amado. Philippine Society and
Revolution. Oakland: International Association of Filipino
Patriots, 1979.
Hindley, Donald. The Communist Party of Indonesia.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.
McVey, Ruth. “Nationalism, Revolution and Organization
in Indonesian Communism,” in Daniel S. Lev and Ruth McVey, (eds.). Making
Indonesia. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996. 96-117.
Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. Maikling Kurso sa
Lipunan at Rebolusyong Pilipino. Manila: Palimbagang Sentral ng
Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, 1998.
___________________________. “Manindigan Para sa
Sosyalismo laban sa Modernong Rebisyonismo,” in Batayang Kurso ng Partido,
Aklat III (Ikalawang Bahagi). Manila: Palimbagang Sentral ng
Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, 2001. 155-209.
___________________________. “Mga Tesis ng Partido Komunista
ng Pilipinas para sa Kumperensyang Internasyunal ng mga Partido at
Organisasyong Marxista-Leninista,” in Unang Bahagi ng Intermedyang Kurso ng
Partido: Pagbubuo ng Partido. Manila: Pambansang Komisyong ng
Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000. 211-232.
20
___________________________. “Programa para sa
Demokratikong Rebolusyon ng Bayan sa Pilipinas,” Kongreso ng Muling Pagtatatag
ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, 26 Disyembre 1968, in Unang Bahagi ng
Intermedyang Kurso ng Partido: Pagbubuo ng Partido. Manila:
Pambansang Komisyong ng Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000. 25-47.
___________________________. “Our Urgent Tasks,”in Unang
Bahagi ng Intermedyang Kurso ng Partido: Pagbubuo ng Partido.
Manila: Pambansang Komisyong ng Nagkakaisang Prente, 2000, 48-99.
___________________________. “Specific Characteristics of
Our People’s War,” in Ikalawang Bahagi ng Intermedyang Kurso ng Partido:
Pagbubuo ng Hukbo. Manila: Pambansang Komisyong ng Nagkakaisang
Prente, 2000, 37-78
Rosca, Ninotchka. Jose Ma. Sison: At Home in the
World — Portrait of a Revolutionary. Manila: Ibon Books, 2004.
Sison, Jose Ma. Krisis at Rebolusyong Pilipino.
Manila: Amado V. Hernandez Resource Center, Inc., 1998.
____________________. Rebolusyong Pilipino:
Tanaw Mula sa Loob. Quezon City: Lagda Publishing, 1994.
___________________. Struggle for National Democracy.
(3rd ed.). Quezon City: Lagda Publishing, 1995.
____________________ and Julieta de Lima. Philippine Economy
and Politics. N.p.: Aklat ng Bayan Publishing House, 1998.
Sumsky, Victor. ‘“Philippine Society and Revolution’” in the
Early 1970s and Now Through Russian Eyes,” paper presented to the 7th
International Conference on Philippine Studies, Leiden, the Netherlands, June
2004
van der Kroef, Justus. “The Philippine Maoists,” Orbis XVI,
(4), winter, 1973.
Weekley, Kathleen. The Communist Party of the Philippines,
1968-1993: A Story of its Theory and Practice. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press, 2001.
Rosca, Ninotchka. Jose Ma. Sison: At Home in the
World — Portrait of a Revolutionary. Manila: Ibon Books, 2004.
Sison, Jose Ma. Krisis at Rebolusyong Pilipino.
Manila: Amado V. Hernandez Resource Center, Inc., 1998.
____________________. Rebolusyong Pilipino:
Tanaw Mula sa Loob. Quezon City: Lagda Publishing, 1994.
___________________. Struggle for National Democracy.
(3rd ed.). Quezon City: Lagda Publishing, 1995.
____________________ and Julieta de Lima. Philippine Economy
and Politics. N.p.: Aklat ng Bayan Publishing House, 1998.
Sumsky, Victor. ‘“Philippine Society and Revolution’” in the
Early 1970s and Now Through Russian Eyes,” paper presented to the 7th
International Conference on Philippine Studies, Leiden, the Netherlands, June
2004
van der Kroef, Justus. “The Philippine Maoists,” Orbis XVI,
(4), winter, 1973.
Weekley, Kathleen. The Communist Party of the Philippines,
1968-1993: A Story of its Theory and Practice. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press, 2001.
http://josemariasison.org/text-and-context-radical-philippine-historiography-and-revolutionary-texts-in-island-southeast-asia/
