Reflections of the Philippine Left
Here is a text from one of the searching elements in the Philippines, a young college student. His text is his reflections on different variants of leftism he personally encountered, particularly maoism and anarchism.
As the world-wide proletarian struggles against capitalist attacks gain momentum, searching elements slowly emerged, studying marxism and leftism; reflecting them and taking position for the former against the latter.
Internasyonalismo, 22 July 2009
-----------------------------------
Being a searching Marxist element in the Philippines is a difficult and usually a very lonely thing to be. Whenever one's ideology is stated, there is usually the stigma to deal with. Normally a regular person would generalize a true Marxist/Communist to be an atheist, a rebel, an activist, a dead man walking or a bitter man who is jealous. This faulty outlook on Marxism has not only been pushed by the Government, but also from the numerous so-called "Leftist" groups in the Philippines. We all know and recognize the fact that these "Leftist" groups are just the left arm of the Capitalist's political apparatus, trying to distract the working class from their true goal, the destruction of World capitalism. They promote state-capitalism and usually some strange personality cults which lead to dogmatism. The first of these groups are either Maoist or Stalinist strains. The most rampant one in the Philippines though are the Maoists. The Maoists usually try to integrate themselves in almost anything they see as a potential way of recruiting people, such as Political Parties, Student Organizations, and Worker Unions.
Being quite an active person in my college, I have come across numerous supposed "Leftists" who adhere to the Maoist thought. Though in general, I would classify them as Maoists, they have different levels of thinking, which helps differentiate each of them. The first ones are the novices or new initiates. The novices I meet usually have just been approached by a Maoist organization and either think about joining or have joined already. They do not know much theoretically aside from what they've been told by the organization. They usually are the idealistic romantic types who imagine and tremble with excitement at the thought of a rally or revolution while shouting slogans of "Nationalism and Democracy!", "I support Social Democracy!" or "Serve the People!" They are the types who believe that by joining forces with the Maoists, they will be able to change the world in a bloodless way. These people though can be easily swayed most especially when faced with a knowledgeable person who would argue about their ‘ideology'.
The next types of Maoists that I have encountered are those who have been in numerous "educational discussions" and believe that they are on the way to being a full fledged revolutionary! (I put "educational discussion" in quotations for it is neither educational, considering during these "discussions" the higher-ups just try to indoctrinate the novices with as much Maoist babble as possible, and nor is it a discussion seeing as how most of the time the higher-ups are talking and would entertain correct questions.) They would try to use almost every new word and concept they've learned in the course of their learning and try to slip it in almost everything they would talk about. These people usually try to be as humble as they can claiming that they aren't Maoist, not due to the fact that they disagree with it, but because they have not reached the pinnacle of Maoist philosophy, therefore they try to say that they are not worthy of the moniker. Though they are heavily influenced by the whole Mao school of thought, they still have a chance of breaking free from the dogma and realizing their error.
The next phase would be when one is highly indoctrinated. People who fall into this category are heavily influenced and are supremely loyal to both the organization and the ideology. This is the stage where the dogmatism has an iron grip and logic has ceased to exist. People who are in this deep have begun to slowly turn the ideology into some sort of cult, while others will blindly agree to Maoism being the evolution of Marxism itself! With these claims, they end up reinforcing the façade of what Communism is and repeat the cycle by bringing in as much initiates as possible. "Mao is perfect" and other such illogical lines are usually dribbled out of their mouths both as a statement of loyalty and a statement of rebellion against the current form of oppression. These people though would usually try to straw man an argument and call it valid, which is why they are usually the hardest to persuade back to the true form of Communism.
Contrary to popular belief though, not everyone is content or agreeable with the Maoist current. Those who are either disillusioned or disgusted from the beginning with Maoism make the big mistake of still relating it to Communism. Thus the rise and birth of Anarchism. Though not well known, the Anarchist scene in the Philippines has grown quite a bit. Sadly this growth is not of the intellectual kind, but one of style. The child of Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin has been brought down to a lumbering idiot. Anarchism has lately been intertwined with the whole Punk Rock and then has been adapted as some sort of angst-y and rebellious teenage lifestyle which constantly "goes against rules" and other such statements which shows the de-evolution of what it once was.
Anarchists of this persuasion are usually depicted (and sometimes seen) riding around in their skateboards in the middle of the road, getting off jeepneys without paying, eating left over food in malls, vandalizing property and other acts of disorder. These kinds of people try to embody the current term of Anarchism which is chaos and disorder. From what these new "Anarchists" say, they wish to destroy the government because it promotes rules, and that the rules are evil and then would just trail off when trying to explain why. What they lack in knowledge though, they try to make up in enthusiasm.
Not all is lost for the original Anarchist current though. Amidst all the idiots are some actual Anarchists who have actually read Bakunin. Much like their intellectual forefathers though, they still believe that the State is an evil apparatus used to suppress and oppress the masses. The ones that I have met though believe that all kinds of organized systems are doomed to failure and that it is a lot better suited for the Philippines, for it is an archipelago. Also like their intellectual fathers, they would still claim that it would be better if everyone was given their own piece of land so that they can do whatever they want with it. Then there is the whole "my own set of rules, which everyone should respect." The "true" Anarchists I have met though are usually of petty-bourgeoisie or actual bourgeoisie backgrounds. True Anarchism though ends up being too self-centered and too individualistic, looking out for ones self, and putting ones need over the others.
All in all, the Philippine "Left" is compromised mostly of uneducated or misled people and the rest are either taking up the reigns to push forward their own purposes or actually believe that they are doing the right thing. As wrong as they are, there is still a sliver of hope that they can realize that what they are promoting and doing is not only detrimental to the worker's movement in the Philippines, but to the worker's movement in the world. By supporting or allowing these vulgar or bastardized versions of the worker's movement to run rampart, not only will the Filipino workers be tricked, but other such organizations around the world would seek support and help rally behind their flag. The only way the worker's movement can move further is not by taking power or doing actions in their name, nor can it progress if we try to alienate ourselves from one another. As what Marx said "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!"
Allan Mendoza, 21 July 2009
Comments
comment from an anarcho-communist
A comment from an anarcho-communist based in UK in our facebook account about the text 'Reflections of the Philippine Left'
------------------------------
Hmm ... that's a shame, a lot like many Anarchists everywhere around the world really, the sort who think that Anarchism = chaos, punk rock, being completely antisocial ... which is simply ridiculous, and is harmful to our movement.
This is done to my own personal capacity though, and I cannot assure anyone that it is representative of other members of the AF's opinions on these matters.
On the Maoist question, I entirely agree, it's the same with Stalinists in Britain too. As such, most authoritarian groups will limit the amount of theory they allow their members to develop, or even learn. Democracy in these organisations is entirely non-existent, usually done with an attempt to make it seem like it is democratic, a bit like how the bourgeoisie in some nations pretend that they are democratic, when it is nothing but a farce. Obviously, this is done to keep their parties large, and their membership obedient and quiet, but it, as the article suggests, does nothing to further the cause of Proletarian emancipation.
On the part on Anarchism in that article though, I'd like to go a little more in detail:
--> "The ones that I have met though believe that all kinds of organized systems are doomed to failure and that it is a lot better suited for the Philippines, for it is an archipelago."
= This I would consider to be Anarchist individualism to be honest, I witness Anarchists who reject organisations often, and although I realise the importance of, but don't see the need of creating or joining, an Anarchist organisation (because afterall, it will be the working class and not an organisation that creates, participates and succeeds in revolution), organising in general needs to be taken up by more Anarchists, around the world, not just in (as it seems)
the Philippines. The complete rejection of organisation (not of organisations [emphasis on the 's']) I would argue is an individualistic and childish mindset. Afterall, society is organised and will continue to be organised, otherwise we will fall into barbarism, and thus, to reject organisation would be to reject society and thus collectivism.
--> "Then there is the whole "my own set of rules, which everyone should respect." The "true" Anarchists I have met though are usually of petty-bourgeoisie or actual bourgeoisie backgrounds. True Anarchism though ends up being too self-centered and too individualistic, looking out for ones self, and putting ones need over the others."
= This again is a problem with what is to be perceived as 'Anarchism', or at least Social Anarchism. I can understand Individualists and Anarcho-Capitalists wanting their own individual set of rules etc. but Social Anarchists should not hold that position at all, afterall, many individual actions affect others, and if it may affect others harmfully, then there must be a collective decision concerning that action.
Still though, the comment that 'True Anarchism' ends up being self centred, by putting one's needs in front of others is silly. As a working class person, the only reason I am an Anarchist is because of my own social and economic position in society. If I was born a member of the bourgeoisie, I most likely would be a Conservative, Libertarian Capitalist, or some other form of bourgeois political capitulation. I am an Anarchist because it is in my class interests, so for Socialists, Communists or Anarchists, the reason many hold those positions is because of their own individualistic tendencies to want what's best for themselves. That's fact, and that's also based on material reality, something which as Marxists, I would have expected the ICC to have been closer to :p
In addition, I see no problem with having those from bourgeois backgrounds being in a workers' movement, obviously it would be dubious if they remained in their position, but don't forget that Engels himself was a factory owner, and continued to enjoy the privileges of a bourgeois lifestyle through to the point of death, and Marx, despite his criticisms of bourgeois society was happy enough to receive funds from Engels, funds which no doubt Engels appropriated from his workforce. In addition, Bakunin and Kropotkin were both former aristocrats, unfortunately, in deprived societies, it is usually the wealthy who have access to knowledge.
individualism
there is a lot to agree with in this post. If the author reads our website, maybe he/she can post here directly.
Clearly there are forms of anarchism which are much more directly conencted to the class struggle, or were in their origins - in particular the anarcho-syndicalist current. However we would argue that by definition anarchism can never make a complete break from individualistic ideologies, even in its anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist forms. What is specific to anarchism is not the class standpoint, which gives rise to collective, unitary, and thus centralised modes of organisation, but the standpoint of the radical individual, who may or may not chose to link up with like-minded people.
Anarchism
This is a good report. But, it seems to me that our comrade in Philippine should have gone deeper & criticizes the Political line as well as Maoists or Anarchists' behavior on an individual level.
But since we are talking at this level, what interests me in some Anarchists that I run in to in Iran, they are mostly well educated here, from the Intellectual layer of the bourgeoisie. Their Anarchist position have started from the rejection of the old Russian & Chinese Revisionism and the opportunistic nature of eclectic Marxism of 20th century. But, of course, most of them are very individualistic and run away from any commitment to organized serious struggle. But, from the younger ones, especially the students, I have found them quite ready to accept the logical argument. I have been successful with many of them, whom are currently very active in our small organization and committed to the New Current of Communism and the necessity of unification, both, locally & internationally.
Come on chaps, play nice
"What is specific to anarchism is not the class standpoint, which gives rise to collective, unitary, and thus centralised modes of organisation, but the standpoint of the radical individual, who may or may not chose to link up with like-minded people."
Alf, would you say something like this in the presence of anarchists? You know that the genuine anarchist position is necessarily a 'class standpoint'. It's concerned with collective organisation in the class struggle as much as any (other) communist position. What's more, anarchists don't reject political struggle. What they are is anti-power politics. Against the capturing and use of the state. To see the state as the political arena is only to repeat the bourgeois separation of the political and economic. To veil the true arena for workers' power. Then again, I'm not even so sure anarchists and the ICC disagree on the question of the state itself. Your organisation's continued use of the terminology and traditions of your supposed ideological forebears is the greatest obstacle to a real understanding of the standpoint of anarchists - which is far from divergent from the ICC's.
Words that communists of both the anarchist and ICC-style persuasion need to clarify:
centralisation;
indidivual standpoint;
political struggle;
the state.
"Then again, I'm not even so
"Then again, I'm not even so sure anarchists and the ICC disagree on the question of the state itself."
The ICC is against the "capture and use" of the bourgeois state. It sees the destruction of that state as the political endpoint of a proletarian revolution, the answer to the question of power that is posed more and more centrally as a revolution moves forward. They also theorize that afterwords, another state emerges from the remaining class distinctions, which the proletariat must also oppose, and into which the organs it created for itself prior to and during the struggle against the bourgeois state must not be integrated.
anarchism and the individual
Mikesabot: obviously many forms of anarchism do adopt a class standpoint. There again other forms are profoundly individualist - lifestyle anarchism for example. The question for us is the particular historic origins of anarchism in the 19th century. Proudhonism and Bakuninism, for us, both expressed the weight of other classes within the proletarian movement, and in both cases there is a deep strain of individualism that derives from the atomised situation of those classes. We would argue that this strain has never been fully overcome by subsequent anarchist currents. For example, in the widespread hostility to a centralised political organisation, which often expresses the fear of the individual radical about losing his uniqueness in a collective body. This criticism, however, does not mean that left communists reject common work with anarchist currents that do adopt a proletarian standpoint despite these weaknesses. Check our French or spanish website for a recent example of joint intervention in the class struggle by our Mexican section with two anarchist groups
"obviously many forms of
"obviously many forms of anarchism do adopt a class standpoint. There again other forms are profoundly individualist - lifestyle anarchism for example."
Absolutely. I'd readily agree unfortuntately that much of the time we encounter a self-defined 'anarchist' we can be almost certain that nothing but lifestylist rubbish will issue for their mouth. The point however is that these 'anarchists' are about as representative for us as, say, the greater number of 'communists' and 'socialists' are to someone in the ICC. The musings of these individualists and 'activist' anarchists are a million miles from our position. Conversely, left communists are incredibly close to it, despite the labels we use, the different origins we have and the continued debate and misunderstandings between us.
Briefly, on the question of origins. Although peasants and the so-called underclass are of far greater importance to the early anarchists than they were Marxists, this has always been overtly linked to the 'working class'. In any case, regarding the contemporary movement, Marx and the works of the radical Marxists (by that I tend to mean, the critical anti-state strain) are held in as high a regard as Bakunin, Kropotkin et al. In this respect we echo the thinking of Dietzgen.
"For example, in the widespread hostility to a centralised political organisation, which often expresses the fear of the individual radical about losing his uniqueness in a collective body."
Again, I think here the issue of the words we use are more important than what they signify. Anarchists emphatically favour tightly organised collective activity, as long as the system of recallable delegates etc. is a part of this. We'd stubbornly go against the empowering of any individual or clique, not for individualist reasons but for the very health of the organisation. 'Centralisation' is not how we define this, but frequently the ICC's usage of this term actually wouldn't attract disgreement from anarchists.
philippine anarchists
this author obviously hasn't encountered the "anarchists" that he was expecting. but then again it would be understandable since i have experienced the the company of "anarchists" he's pertaining as well.
It might be fair to point out, for you as members of the IKT, that i have been in constant contact with you guys since 2009 (maybe the article was made earlier, another consideration to point out) and i don't think i can be dismissed as an idiot and airhead. And I am not an exception. There are a lot of us.
Reply to rhizone
As you noticed, we put an introduction to the article written by a student contact of ICC.
You are right. Philippine anarchism has many variants. And some of them are serious people with clear anarchist principles like you.