February 17, 2012
REFERENCE: Vencer Crisostomo, Anakbayan national chairperson, 09174416739
Anakbayan hits Noynoy for coddling Gloria,
other ‘war criminals’ with extension of Arroyo’s hospital ‘arrest’
The youth group Anakbayan joined hundreds of other protesters today in a
picket in front of the Veterans Memorial Medical Center to condemn the
continuing house arrest of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The group slammed the extension as proof that the administration of
President Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III is coddling war criminals and
“Petty thieves who steal a few pesos are quickly sent to an ordinary jail.
But steal billions of pesos and kill hundreds of people and you get
special treatment” said Vencer Crisostomo, national chairperson of
The youth group is calling for the jailing of the former president for her
involvement in several multi-million peso corruption scandals, as well as
the 1,100+ cases of extra-judicial killings and 200+ cases of enforced
disappearances committed by military personnel during her rule.
Crisostomo pointed that aside from Arroyo receiving special treatment, one
of her ‘favorite’ military generals, retired Gen. Jovito Palparan, has
remained scott-free despite being charged with the abduction of two
students from the University of the Philippines.
“Together, these two (Arroyo, Palparan) have conspired to create the
darkest era in regards to human rights since the Marcos dictatorship. Yet
one is being treated like a ‘guest of honor’ at the VMMC, while another is
being ‘kept safe’ by the military. Aquino hasn’t even publicly condemned
the human rights violations committed by the two” said he youth leader.
He concluded that Noynoy is not serious about ‘punishing’ Arroyo, raising
serious doubts about the ongoing impeachment trial against Chief Justice
“For Aquino to claim that his ‘vendetta’ against Corona is a part of the
‘crusade’ against Arroyo is a huge joke. The impeachment is not about
going after Gloria. They could have done many things to punish her even
with the current situation, removing any special treatment for her being
one of them” said Crisostomo.
He added “It is about controlling the Supreme Court, and it is about
popularity ratings. It is about distracting the public about their
worsening condition. It is about creating a Supreme Court which will keep
Hacienda Luisita in Cojuangco-Aquino hands” . ###
Anakbayan Public Information Committee
Contact us at: email@example.com / +639175197758
Visit the Online Campaign center @ anakbayan.org
"Only through militant struggle can the best in the youth emerge"
The Workers Dreadnought
Book Review: Jose Maria Sison’s “Philippine
Society and Revolution”
By Dhruv Jain
I, like most Maoists, have been following with interest the developments
in the revolutionary movement in the Philippines for the last few years.
However, despite my interest in the Filipino movement and the fact that I
had read numerous statements from different organisations affiliated to
the National Democratic movement, their ideological leader and Chairman of
the International League of People’s Struggles, Jose Maria Sison, and the
documents of the Second Great Rectification movement that was launched in
1992 inside the CPP (I have briefly discussed the debates surround the
Second Rectification movement here), I had not read Jose Maria Sison/Amado
Guerrero’s Marxist-Leninist classic, Philippine Society and Revolution.
There were several reasons for this blind-spot in my knowledge of the
Filipino movement: 1) finding copies of Philippine Society and Revolution
proved to be more difficult than I had imagined insofar that few
affordable second-hand copies were available, there had not been a
re-printing of the book since 1996 (and thus I had to wait for the 2006
edition), and the only website from which one could purchase a new copy
was based in the Philippines; 2) after I had finally procured a copy of
the book (which I was really excited about) did not find the time to read
it and; 3) I found it to be quite dull (I feel very differently about the
book this time, however till now this has been my experience with it).
However, I recently did sit down to read the book and felt very
differently about the book. Indeed, I really enjoyed reading the book.
I would like to briefly explain the impetus for reading the book. I took
the time to read it because I intended to attend a seminar on it that was
being held in the Netherlands. This time I found it to be much more
interesting, partially I am sure because of the context of the seminar,
however, it was simply not such a narrow reason. I think its because I
started to read the book with a very different relationship to the book.
Previously I simply wanted to read the book because it was a
Marxist-Leninist classic and written by a key Maoist intellectual.
However, this time I also asked the following questions: Why read a
Marxist-Leninist book about the Philippines? And that too a book that was
written in 1969? I developed several reasons for this:
1) Philippine Society and Revolution is a very good example of an attempt
to actually apply Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, or in its more
contemporaneous and renovated form, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to actually
analyze the social structure of a given country i.e. the Philippines.
Please, permit an aside and to briefly explain a few of the terms I just
used above: a social structure is composed of both, the superstructure –
which is itself is constituted by competing different ideological
formations, the juridical and political structure of the society etc. –
whilst the base is composed of the relations of production and social
relations, and recognizes that in a given structure that there could exist
a single of multiple mode of productions. In the case of the Philippines,
Sison demonstrates that there simultaneously exist two modes of
production, one in the urban centers which is characterised by largely
capitalist relations of production and social relations, although there
feudal remnants persist, and in the rural countryside a feudal structure,
which of course has some nascent capitalist forms of productions and
social relationships. He characterizes this social structure as
semi-feudal semi-colonial. One can see other examples of such works that
have been produced such as the works of Chairman Mao Zedong and other
leading members of the Communist Party of China in the case of China; the
documents of the erstwhile unified Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist), and its successor the Communist Party of India
(Maoist); and the work of Dr. Baburam Bhattari of Nepal entitled,
“Politico-Economic Rationale for People’s War in Nepal” (which has not
been translated although a shortened version of it is available).
Unfortunately similarly intensive and developed work does not exist for
Canada or France, although preliminary analyses do exist, thus Philippine
Society and Revolution does serve as an example of how such an analysis
may be done and definitely provokes comrade to produce similar work for
their own countries.
2) Many of us who are abroad and have been keenly watching the development
of the revolutionary movement in the Philippines for many years, and may
have read many of the statements, presentations and interviews that
Professor Sison, the NDFP and the CPP have released. However, fewer of us
may have taken the opportunity to read carefully a key text in the
Filipino people’s struggle for national democracy and people’s democracy.
But, it is only with reading Philippine Society and Revolution is the
revolutionary movement laid bare for all to see, and can only come to
actually comprehend the reasons be behind the specific goals and tasks of
the revolutionary movement. Indeed, it becomes clear that the tasks and
strategy of the Philippines revolution, led by the CPP, do not simply
appear out of nowhere, but rather emerge out of the very material
conditions of Filipino society and political economy. Thus, the book
serves as a powerful ideological weapon against petit-bourgeois impatience
and adventurism, revisionism and bourgeois idealism.
I definitely have some criticisms of the book and agree with some that the
book needs to be re-written to reflect the conditions of the Philippines
today, especially in light of the collapse of the USSR, the development of
capitalism in the PRC, and the rise of the USA as a sole super-power. I
recognise that Sison has provided revisions and addendum’s to Philippine
Society and Revolution in a variety of articles and a course of 10
lectures entitled, Philippine Crisis and Revolution (which have been
published in Philippine Economy and Politics), but continue to think that
since Philippine Society and Revolution is meant to be a central document
of the Philippine Revolution it should reflect the new realities in which
Philippines society finds itself. However, I think that there are six
major sections of the book that need to be further developed including: 1)
a more careful analysis of the role of the Filipino bureaucracy which
according to Sison is simply a representative of the comprador bourgeoisie
and the landlord classes, and does not have its own class interests; 2)
the autonomy of the comprador bourgeoisie which according to Sison largely
does not exist as the Philippine comprador bourgeoisie are simply puppets
of the American government; 3) a more thorough and clear articulation as
to why Philippine society continues to be semi-feudal inasmuch that Sison
himself admits thats a greater percentage of the agricultural workforce
are actually agrarian workers rather, than feudal serfs (a similar
critique has been made to the Indians);
4) the book itself does not provide a very good account of the line
struggles within the CPP that lead to its rectification in 1962 and thus
at different points the narrative is rather confusing and contradictory;
5) the section on women is incredibly weak and does not reflect the real
difficulties in developing a feminist proletarian society and; 6) it seems
like Sison uses the word “fascist” to describe brutal police actions
against the population, and does not have a rigorous understanding of
Overall I strongly recommend people read this book, however, I would
suggest reading it in the context of a study group whilst thinking about
how you could use it to understand your own conjuncture inasmuch that it
serve as a useful model of how to do such analysis.