A movement must change Its ‘theory’ or be marginalized

“The Communist Party
of the Philippines”
by Kathleen Weekley
University of the Philippines Press,
2001


We begin with a paraphrase of a saying that went the rounds among former or reluctant activists at age 30 or below, you have no heart; but if you are still an activist at 31 and above, you have no mind.”

Obviously, this quote downgrades activism as a passing interest. Which is not necessarily true. We have, for example, an activist Supreme Court, inhabited by justices already pushing 70!

But, a grain of truth is inescapable. Otherwise, how do you explain firebrand activists that figured in the First Quarter Storm in the early ‘70s – who now occupy comfortable sinecures in government or are top strategist in corporate boardrooms?

How do you make sense of leftists editors, who wrote editorials in college campus papers ringing with Marxist – Leninist rhetoric, who are now resident intellectuals in the highest rung of public policy makers.

Also, they have become gurus of propaganda and advocacy efforts of civil society. Or, they remained “ideologically pure” as academicians waxing nostalgic over a glorious past.

Where have all the revolutionaries gone? Quo vadis, “Revolution”?

What has happened to the revolutionary movement in the Philippines – a highly visible force in the ‘70s and ‘80s? Is it now a faint memory, a spent force? Or, is it lying low and quiet preceding a dramatic comeback?

“The Communist Party of the Philippines – 1968 – 1993,” written by Kathleen Weekley, a research fellow from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, is an interesting study of a movement that was very close to coming to power – or, at the very least, to sharing power with the country’s traditional rulers.

In 1985, according to this book, “the national revolutionary movement was a serious threat to the state” with around 30,000 members, 59 guerilla fronts and 24,000 regulars and part-timers.

This book is interesting on two counts. First, it is an instructive study of a national movement, driven by a revolutionary theory, swelled by “believers,” and strengthened by a show of force.

Second, it is a movement of “discovery” or “rediscovery” – as if a think layer of our social fabric is peeled off to reveal a world largely hidden from the public eye, whose underground activities occasionally shook the foundations of “visible society.”

We know much about recent history from the Marcosian dictatorship to the Ninoy Aquino assassination; from the first Edsa revolt to the ascendancy of two post Edsa Presidents Cory Quino and Fidel Ramos.

This book gives us a parallel – albeit largely hidden – history of a movement inspired by Karl Marx and indoctrinated by Mao Tse Tung, which infused energy to the left leaning labor movement and surfaced as a broad-based socialist coalition named the “National Democratic Front.”

As a doctoral dissertation, the study was actually interested in finding out the “place of theory” in revolutionary practice – with a disturbing conclusion that the “25 years of revolutionary practice indicated a problem with formulae.”

In layman’s terms, the author is saying that the movement could not have petered out if, midstream, it reassessed its assumptions and changed strategy to suit deep changes in political and social conditions.

The Communist Party’s mistake, the author concludes, is that it “ignored the relationship between the ‘objective and subjective reality.’” The view of the masses must be part of reality, and “not a convenient feature of a democratic struggle.”

The account is given a human face, especially when it discusses Jose Maria Sison’s intellectual treatises and Bernabe Buscayno’s folk heroism. It also provides us an insight into the previous appeal of the globalized “revolution” that has placed Mao and Che Guevarra on a pedestal.

The author is incisive when she discusses the deep split within the ranks of the Party, especially addressing the question whether the movement will continue the “armed struggle”.

She quotes a weary armed insurgent: “The argument for war is lost when the light of peace – however dim – shines through.”

This organizational “wedge” cut more deeply when the Party was divided over whether to boycott the 1986 elections or not. The Party finally decided to stay away from the electoral exercise – which led, according to Ms Weekley, to its “political marginalization.”

A section, titled “From Vanguard to Rearguard,” captures the decline (from the author’s viewpoint) of movement.

Actually, one discerns a sympathetic treatment from an author whose passion and interest are on issues of national identity, citizenship and human rights. She rues the fact that the movement even during its “rectification campaign, “ still wanted to “return to a world that no longer exists.”

So you ask: What’s the value of a study that analyzes the decline of a movement?

First (if you just change the ideological bent), this becomes an excellent guide to driving a new movement toward achieving a goal. Second, you will realize once again, especially in this century, that theory must change when times are deeply altered. And third, know that a socialist opposition – this time wearing the garb of non-violence – may still provide the necessary counterweight to the extreme right. And thus, make real democracy possible.