STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
& DECLARATION OF INTENT
We are a group of people who have found each other, driven together by mounting anger and growing despair—but also by collective hope and a common resolve to build a new world together.
We come from different walks of life, doing very different things for a living. Many of us are employees, teachers, poets, organizers, artists, doctors, students, writers, professionals; others do unpaid work taking care of other people. Some of us live on meager pay or no pay at all, while others earn more or have more wealth. Some of us are women, LGBTQIA+, or Queer; but many if not most of us are cis-gender. Several of us are young; but others are seniors or middle-aged. Many of us are fair-skinned, were raised in the city, and speak Tagalog or English with Manila accents; but some of us are dark-skinned, come from the countryside, and speak in a way that gives away our peasant origins. We come from different places and identify as part of different ethnic groups or nationalities; a number of us see ourselves as belonging to no country. Some of us are religious; others are agnostic or atheist. Many of us are physically able; some of us suffer from various disabilities. Many of us are new to politics; some of us have long been involved in social movements. Some of us are more privileged; others suffer more from different forms of injustice and oppression.
We have had very different experiences, we have varied sensibilities, and we are not free of disagreements. But we have come together, convinced of the need to establish a new socialist party and determined to struggle for a new civilization.
In this document, we share why we believe such a party is necessary, how we think this party can contribute to building a new world, and on what values we shall strive this party to be built on. The first section deals with where we are coming from—the problems that burden us, the dangers we face. In the second section, we talk about why we find ourselves in these conditions; it presents our understanding of the character of Philippine society and the larger world in which it is embedded. The third section discusses the constraints existing leftist parties face. The fourth section is where we outline our strategy for constructing the new world we envision. In the last section, we describe the party we seek to establish, discuss the principles that should guide our organizational life, and elaborate on the new political culture we will strive to create.
I.
For us, as for millions of others, life has not been easy.
Those among us who were born to working-class families have struggled all our lives to get by. The women and the LGBTQIA+ among us in particular have suffered more, doing work that is not even recognized as work. Those of us who live with disabilities, who are older, who have darker skin, or who have other traits considered undesirable by society have lived our lives dealing with stigma and discrimination. Even those of us who grew up more privileged have also suffered, trapped in roles we have been forced to assume and compelled to justify structures that we ourselves find unacceptable.
But now things are taking a turn for the worse.
The hard-won gains that somehow made life a little more bearable for many of us—such as being assured of regular employment, being paid more than the minimum wage, or being provided some minimal health care— are being snatched back as reforms are rolled back and as limited social services are further restricted. Informal workers, including the so-called precariat, are particularly worse off: Though they produce much of the wealth, they are deprived of elementary benefits, suffer from low wages, are deprived of security of tenure or social protection, and work under woeful conditions. But even formal or regular workers have not been able to rest easy: their wages can’t keep up with inflation and the threat of unemployment stalks their existence.
Even those of us from the middle strata have not been spared. The entitlements we have come to take for granted—such as the ability to buy our own house, to get good medical care, or to take vacations—could no longer be taken for granted as even our jobs become more precarious, as giant corporations drive small businesses to bankruptcy, and as public provisions that primarily benefit us are reduced.
No one is safe. Indigenous peoples are being driven off or deprived of control over their ancestral lands by giant agribusiness corporations and special economic zones, forced to live like mendicants on the edges of the fields they have cultivated for centuries or reduced to beggarly status in city streets. Informal settlers in the city are being kicked out of their shanties to give way to largely empty luxury condominiums by real estate developers and speculators. Peasants are being crushed under the weight of accumulating debt as they find themselves unable to compete with cheap, heavily subsidized goods from abroad. Many among the youth are struggling to go to school. Those who can afford to study are only molded to become docile wage workers rather than full human beings, schooled in an environment in which historical distortions freely circulate, academic freedom is constrained, red-tagging is rife, and authoritarian modes of pedagogy dominate. Deprived of better options at home, migrant workers are being forced to stay longer abroad. Many grow old taking care of others’ children while being unable to embrace their own.
Especially hard hit among us are the women and Queer people, as well as other subordinated groups, who have long been forced to perform unpaid labor at home. Not only do they suffer what all other workers suffer from, they are also subjected to unique forms of violence, discrimination, and exploitation.
For the vast majority of us who are in the producing classes and subordinated groups, it has become more difficult to survive—and even more difficult to pursue happiness and live fulfilling lives.
Despite unparalleled increases in global wealth and productivity, so many of us—not only the poor but even the seemingly better-off—are living slow deaths, condemned to spend the rest of our days unable to explore, discover, and realize our potential as totally accomplished human beings. We are alive and yet we are barely living.
And it is not just us.
Despite repeated warnings and years of protest by environmental groups, the destruction of the entire ecosystem is escalating. Our planet is burning and dying at a fast rate. Even today—as droughts worsen, typhoons become more destructive, food supplies are depleted, and what were once “extreme” weather events become common occurrences—the most vulnerable are already experiencing a slow process of going extinct.
Apocalypse may only be “imminent” to those who live in bigger, stronger houses or who have the means to adapt to the changing climate. But for many others, the apocalypse is already happening. Our sources of life—the earth around us and the workers who produce all wealth—are being steadily degraded.
And yet, despite the enormous gravity of the crises we face, those in power are incapable of offering us a way out.
Elected through a broken democratic system, our so-called “leaders” are fiddling while the earth smolders. The top 1% are unable to see beyond their noses; their agents in government are simply there to do their bidding while paying lip service to the public good.
Liberals of various stripes are in disarray. Many of them recognize the magnitude of the danger but don’t go far enough in recognizing the roots of the problem. Committed only to improving the plight of the subordinated rather than to abolishing relations of subordination altogether, they recoil from fighting for real and lasting solutions. More willing to give up the crown than their purses, they have unwittingly paved the ground for the growing appeal of fascism.
Fascists are on the rise, catapulted to power by a tide of popular disenchantment and resentment against the once-dominant liberal establishments. Determined to maintain current relations through more ruthless and despotic means, they goad people to channel their rage against outsiders and minorities and to fight for false solutions to our all-too real problems. Instead of delivering us from danger, they are taking us further down the road to barbarism.
Most distressing, however, is that the left—the only force willing to push for a systemic solution to our existential problems—also seems hobbled if not paralyzed. Subjected to increased repression but also weighed down by chronic internal weaknesses, bogged down by sectarianism, and held back by dated analyses, many left formations currently find themselves constrained from providing the leadership now desperately needed for us to avoid annihilation and create a new civilization.
II.
Having come together from very different backgrounds and perspectives, we have differences on many questions.
But we have all come to arrive at one fundamental starting-point of the left: That we have found ourselves here, unable to live fully and faced with the threat of planetary destruction, in large part because of the kind of society we have come to live in.
Over the years, our country has significantly changed. It is no longer a feudal society or even simply a backward capitalist society. It has become a predominantly capitalist society deeply embedded in a capitalist world-economy.
Vestiges of feudalism have become weaker and weaker over the years. Any remnants of pre-capitalist or non-capitalist systems have been subsumed under and incorporated into the all-too dominant capitalist order. And the words “backward” or “stagnant” no longer capture the nature of the capitalism that has gained ground in the country.
Though it is arguably marked by peculiar characteristics that set it apart from countries like the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France (i.e. vestiges of pre-capitalist modes remain deeply rooted, industrialization remains limited, its agricultural sector has shrunk but remains significant, etc.), these characteristics do not necessarily signify that it is not a capitalist society—only that it has become a different type of capitalist society.
Here, as in other capitalist societies, a tiny minority has come to own and control much of the land, capital, and all other things people need to survive. The vast majority have been dispossessed of everything but their bodies and their labor-power or capacity to work. Production for exchange (or commodity production) rather than for self-consumption has been generalized. Without access to the means of production, all but a few have been forced to sell their labor-power as a commodity. Moreover, as in advanced economies, the dominance of finance capital has become entrenched and unyielding.
In the agrarian sector, many peasants have been forced to turn to seasonal wage work tied to the capitalist labor market while still tending to their lands—or to leave the land altogether and become full-time agricultural, service, or industrial wage-workers. The promise of meaningful agrarian reform as an antidote to peasant landlessness have all but dissipated by watered down laws, an ineffectual bureaucracy, corporate land grabs, and fierce resistance by a landed bourgeois class, thus further marginalizing the peasantry or hastening their proletarianization.
Consequently, in this society as in other capitalist societies, all but an isolated few are dependent on the market to survive.
Capitalists are of course driven, if they are to survive competition, to make as much profit as possible in the market—and thus also to make their workers work harder or longer for the same or lower pay and to use more raw materials and the cheapest sources of energy. Even smaller capitalists are under pressure to exploit their employees in order to stay afloat to avoid being eaten by the big corporations. Big or small, the bourgeoisie are themselves prevented by the system from easing or ending exploitation.
Thrown off the land, workers also have little choice but to turn to the market to sell their labor-power and to agree to the demands of capitalists to work harder or longer for fear of starvation, homelessness, and poverty. Even peasants who have retained some access to the land are now also forced to sell their produce in the market in order to repay their debts, meet the ever ballooning costs of production, and put food on the table.
Many capitalists are, at the same time, large landowners who run their holdings like feudal fiefs, maintain patron-client ties with their workforce, and impose political means of domination all with the ultimate aim of amassing super profits. A significant number of our state officials are themselves capitalists or have interests in business, but even those politicians or bureaucrats not directly involved in the market are also under pressure to prioritize or at least not contravene the interests of capitalists because their own fortunes are tied to the fortunes of the latter.
The result is increasing labor productivity and unprecedented capital accumulation that benefits a small segment of the population accompanied by deepening inequality and widespread poverty endured by the vast majority: Millions of homeless people living in squalor while thousands of houses stand empty; truckloads of food being thrown away while so many go hungry; so much work that can be done to improve people’s lives but millions of people stay unemployed.
But in addition, the result is also the unprecedented degradation of nature and the worker.
Being dependent on selling their labor-power to survive while also forced to submit to the authority of the boss in the workplace, workers in the Philippines have come to spend much of their days either unemployed or trapped in the drudgery of jobs they would rather not do if given the choice, or confined to the domestic sphere doing tasks that are not even recognized and compensated as work. Seen and treated as nothing more than a source of raw materials or a dumping ground for waste rather than as a living organism with its own autonomy and dignity, nature too is disrespected, devalued, and destroyed.
But this is not all. Not only has the Philippines become a capitalist society characterized by an enduring conflict of interests between workers and capitalists, it has also become a society in which sexism, racism or ethnic-chauvinism, ableism, ageism, anthropocentrism, carcerality, and other relations of domination have become more deeply entrenched.
Though possibly already in existence even before capitalism, these varied forms of subordination have been reinforced by capitalism, making them even more difficult to dismantle or making them endure longer than they should have.
Thus, the subordination of women enables capitalists to pass on the costs of reproductive work to these stigmatized groups. Capitalists are consequently constrained from once and for all ending the disempowerment of women or Queer people. Large employers gain from keeping the wages low for both probinsyanos and the urban lower classes, Moros, Indigenous peoples, the disabled, seniors, the incarcerated, etc. Consequently, employers do little despite their vast powers to erode the racist, chauvinist, ableist, ageist, or carceral prejudices that justify this exploitative practice. Worse, many even actively promote these retrograde beliefs.
The effect is that not only workers in general are subordinated but that specific groups are subjected to multiple, intersecting forms of subordination. Women, Queer, the dark-skinned, Indigenous people, seniors, the disabled, the incarcerated, and other groups suffer from specific forms of violence.
These different forms of oppression have been enabled by a more complex instrument of rule in the country, put in place and reproduced over time by capitalists and other dominant groups inside and outside the country.
Armed, financed, or otherwise propped up by their imperialist patrons or collaborators, the different sections of the country’s ruling classes have succeeded in waging a historically unique way of overthrowing the old order—one that is more akin to the conservative revolutions “from above” in other countries. Unlike the bourgeoisie in France, the ruling classes forged a kind of compromise with the old order while still establishing a new predominantly capitalist order by organizing and mobilizing the lower classes towards very limited transformative aims.
By so doing, the country’s elites have not only created a new kind of economy but also established a new kind of state in the country: one that includes not only the police, or the military, or the usual repressive apparatuses but also the private organs and institutions of civil society such as schools, the academia, the media, voluntary associations, even workplaces—everything that functions to organize consent or discipline huge populations in part by instilling in people the conscious or unconscious belief or disposition that no other world is possible, that society cannot be organized in no way aside from capitalism.
But as powerful as it has become, such a state remains weak and ridden with contradictions, at least in part because of continuing internal disputes among elites. Our country is ruled by so many political dynasties and big propertied families from different sections of the bourgeoisie. Though they have proven capable of coming together to push down the oppressed, the country’s ruling classes nevertheless remain in constant struggle with each other, all scrambling for the largest share of the spoils and each seeking to seize and instrumentalize the state to protect and advance their own specific interests.
Unable to unite their own ranks, however, elites in our country can only go so far in rallying the oppressed behind them. Focused on advancing their own family or faction’s interests, they can’t deliver on their promise of advancing the interests of all. Though they have made concessions over the past decades, sufficient to have temporarily placated those at the bottom, they have refused to give more—indeed, they are taking back many of what they have been forced to concede before.
But as a result, dissatisfaction with the status quo among the oppressed has grown. Perennially impoverished or insecure, more and more people are recognizing the hollowness of our so-called “democracy”—one in which everyone has the right to vote but choices are limited only to factions of the same oppressive ruling elite class and in which only a tiny insulated and unaccountable minority have the final say. Deprived not only of wealth but even of hope, more and more people are yearning for alternatives, opening the possibility of radical change.
Whether or not such a possibility is realized has depended largely on the choices and actions of one political force: the left.
Unfortunately, this very force finds itself in a very difficult position today.
III.
For much of the past century, socialists in the Philippines have been waging a heroic struggle against the forces of oppression in the country.
For much of the past century, socialists in the Philippines have been waging a heroic struggle against the forces of oppression in the country.
Since the founding of the first left organizations in the early twentieth century, tens of thousands of activists have devoted their lives organizing workers, peasants, and other oppressed groups to resist exploitation and domination despite facing severe repression by the state. Many have died fighting the good fight; so many have made tremendous sacrifices for the movement.
And as a result, so many gains have been attained: Important concessions have been won, the space for organizing has been opened and progressive principles and ideas have moved beyond the margins.Though misconceptions of the left still thrive, socialist and socialist-related ideas have become part of the consciousness of common people. Perhaps most importantly, hope in a better future and the conviction that a socialist society is possible has not been fully extinguished among the disempowered.
But today, the Philippine left seems spent and paralyzed.
Subjected not only to more severe repression but also hobbled by all sorts of internal problems, progressive forces in the country are currently unable to seize the moment and shift the course of history onto a more radical and system-changing track.
The causes of this decline and paralysis deserve more thorough reflection. Part of the reason surely has to do with the violence unleashed by the state against progressive forces—including the wholesale vilification and demonizing of the left and left ideas that have been embedded in the consciousness of the general public. Another part of the reason may have to do with the restructuring of industry, the relocation of manufacturing abroad, and other changes which have all had the effect of disorganizing the left’s main social bases in the last several decades.
But part of the reason may also involve something more internal and subjective: with many socialists in the country remaining closed to updated analyses of Philippine society and the global economy, unwilling to undertake a critical review of recent developments and discard outdated premises.
To begin with, many on the left still seem bound to the assumption that reduces imperialism to that which prevailed in the past and equates capitalism with the capitalism of England, the United States, or other pioneers. Assessing current realities from these lenses, they remain adamant in characterizing Philippine society either as a backward capitalist society or even a semi-feudal society altogether, thereby missing all the ways by which imperialism has evolved and all the ways by which capitalism has taken on unique, historically contingent forms over the past decades.
Secondly, a linear and stagist view of historical change is still pervasive in much of the left: Many still hold on to the view that for Philippine society to become capitalist (and therefore socialist), it must first go through what the first capitalist societies went through, i.e. there has to be a “bourgeois democratic” revolution of the sort that was waged in France
But by doing so, those who take this view miss all the ways by which societies can experience very different forms of revolution and go through much more complex and more varied routes to modernity or so-called development, opening up very different historical possibilities at every juncture. In addition, they effectively absolve the local capitalist class of responsibility for the country’s sorry state of affairs, turn a blind eye to its historical dalliance with imperialism, and erroneously categorize them as a “national bourgeoisie.” They refuse to see predominant sections of this class as having already attained autonomy in seizing the fruits of exploitation of the working population and nature.
Thirdly, many socialists remain focused solely on the economy rather than on the totality of society in analyzing existing conditions. Commonly discounted is the centrality and relative autonomy of the state and civil society—and therefore also of politics and culture—in their assessment of Philippine society.
Hobbled by economic determinism, many who take this perspective tend to overlook the multifarious ways by which similar economic conditions can nonetheless give rise to a variety of complex social arrangements, concrete lived experiences, and political terrains. Constrained by class reductionism, they also tend to neglect and de-emphasize the plight of other social sectors, intermediate classes, and concerns.
Insofar as they give due importance to the state at all, many socialists still reduce it to its repressive core, thereby preventing us from attending to all the ways by which the state may have both expanded its coercive powers and simultaneously developed more sophisticated forms of keeping the system in place. These sophisticated powers are not mere crude tools like despotic power—coercion and violence—but include infrastructural power and discursive power—the power to regulate society through institutions, and the power to manufacture consent respectively.
Others recognize the hegemonic or disciplinary component of the state, but they still tend to see the state as a mere vehicle that can be driven at will to whichever direction its occupants wish to take it. They thereby obscure ways the broader structure in which this state is embedded prevents the accumulation of reforms and rule out more progressive possibilities altogether.
Kept out of view as well are the myriad ways by which the dispossessed and deprived sectors are able to undertake autonomous and self-managed forms of development at the grassroots level, or the means by which they build on age-old principles and practices of solidarity, cooperation, sharing, the commons, self-help, etc. that provide windows and building blocks into what an alternative society should look like.
Relatedly, insofar as many on the left take culture seriously, they still conceive of it as merely an epiphenomenal manifestation of the economic sphere, thereby keeping out of view all the ways by which everyday beliefs and taken-for-granted practices prevent workers from achieving revolutionary consciousness. Others take culture more seriously but, reducing hegemony to mere propaganda or disinformation, they are oblivious to the more insidious methods by which hegemonic or disciplinary power works at both conscious and subconscious levels.
Finally, in much of the left’s analysis of the economy, there is still an almost exclusive focus on productive work in the farms, factories, offices, or shops. They consequently still neglect to recognize and examine the reproductive work, borne disproportionately by women and other subordinated groups, that make productive work—indeed, all life—possible at all. They thereby also miss the many other ways by which class exploitation takes place and thus, combines with or reinforces gender and other forms of oppression.
Because they are closed to updated, new, and more creative ways of thinking about society, many socialists have consequently had difficulty responding to the state’s escalating offensive against the left and the restructuring of the global economy. Unwilling to undertake ruthless criticism of all that exists—including their own strategies, they have remained bound to courses of action that may have made sense before but no longer do under the very different circumstances we find ourselves in today.
Thus, inattentive to the complex ways by which capitalism has evolved and how the state has developed, they continue to organize in ways that have not eroded prevailing relations of control and domination, thus leaving the fundamental pillars of power of the elites undisturbed.
Having reduced the state to its coercive aspect, they remain wedded to organizational modes of existence (i.e., being “underground,” clandestine, etc.) more appropriate for rudimentary, despotic forms of capitalist rule but less so for more advanced or more sophisticated—because “democratic” but illiberal, populist, or fascistic—forms of bourgeois hegemony.
Unmindful of the different ways by which class, gender, and other forms of oppression intersect, some leftists have failed to reach out to larger sections of the oppressed or, when they attempt to do so, they continue to speak in a language alien to these oppressed sections. Worse, some have ended up perpetuating hyper-masculine, authoritarian, ableist, ageist and other oppressive practices in their own organizations.
Intentionally or not, many socialists have also consequently contributed to the maintenance of a culture in the left that is more disempowering than invigorating, more dispiriting than inspiring. Extremely centralized or “commandist” and suspicious if not altogether intolerant of autonomous and independent left initiatives outside of their ambit, they have succeeded in driving away rather than drawing people into the movement. Insisting on a rigid radicalism in which they claim to be “more radical” or even to be the “true” left, they have managed to repel many who could have contributed to the cause. And unable to create space for mutual care and flourishing, many succeed in instilling skepticism rather than hope in an alternative future.
To be sure, the Philippine left is far from monolithic. Different sections of it face specific problems. But many of their problems arguably go back to their rejection of different ways of understanding Philippine society and the larger world system in which it is embedded.
Thus, those who insist that the Philippines remain predominantly pre-capitalist remain stuck at trying to bring about the transformation of Philippine society into a capitalist society—a social transformation that has all but taken place albeit in unforeseen ways—instead of trying to shape this transformation. In pursuit of this goal, they continue to wage a “protracted people’s war” that, after half a century of being waged and after immense sacrifices by so many committed and idealistic cadres, is nowhere close to—indeed, may well be farther away from—the victory they seek.
Overlooking the complex ways by which domination is now exercised by the state, they have subordinated everything solely to the defeat of the state’s repressive apparatus. They have consequently neglected to build a truly independent alternative to the hegemony exercised by the country’s elites. Though they have formed relatively large bases of support, their efforts are ultimately subordinated to the consideration of rural guerilla warfare. Consequently, they are unable to harness these bases to advance the socialist agenda, mobilizing or de-mobilizing them instead to support whichever faction of the ruling elite they consider to be tactical strategic allies in pursuit of their strategy.
But without countering the state’s hegemonic power, this dominant section of the left has also not gone very far in achieving their target of surrounding the cities from the countryside and prevailing over the state’s repressive apparatus. Moreover, to assert their dominant position in the left, they have resorted to purges and other acts of outright physical violence towards comrades, creating an atmosphere of fear and suppressing pluralist and autonomous articulations of socialism.
Those who take a very different view, such as those who insist that the Philippines has become a “backward capitalist” society face their own limitations. Correctly insisting that Philippine capitalism is no longer “semi-feudal” but still taking a linear view of historical change and overlooking the unique kind of revolution the dominant classes have managed to carry out in the country, they pursue a different but similarly misguided goal: the completion of a so-called “bourgeois democratic” revolution.
By doing so, they too overlook the windows that have closed and the doors that have opened up with the conservative revolution from above carried out by the Philippine bourgeoisie in recent decades. Also stuck to a view of the state as primarily if not exclusively repressive rather than hegemonic, they too have harnessed much of their energies towards organizing an insurrection that mainly targets the state’s coercive core—a strategy that has not gone far and is unlikely to go far given the new forms of non-coercive defenses built up by the state.
Those on the left who recognize the radical changes undergone by Philippine society but who still have rudimentary conceptualization of the nature of the state are mired in an entirely different set of problems.
Some have become aware of the extent to which the state’s consensual and disciplinary apparatus has expanded, but they have made the opposite mistake of discounting if not altogether ignoring the continuing power of the state’s coercive core. Others are attuned to the continuing importance of repression in maintaining the present order, but they still see the state in crude terms as just an all-purpose vehicle that can be used to achieve socialism. They underestimate the ways by which the state has been wired to prioritize capital accumulation over everything else.
Convinced that reforms can pile up until they eventually amount to a wholesale transformation of the system, both types of socialists fall into the de-mobilizing strategy of merely trying to take hold of the state machine in alliance with elite parties open to their proposed reforms. Wittingly or unwittingly ending up as transmission belts of the elites’ hegemonic power or as agents assisting elites in neutralizing class antagonisms, they consequently find themselves constantly blindsided, unable to push back as elites roll back the limited reforms they have managed to secure, as they themselves have been complicit in de-mobilizing and de-politicizing the oppressed.
Theirs is a tragic and cautionary tale: They started out wanting to conquer the system from within, but they ended up being swallowed by the system instead. Without them necessarily intending to, they have turned into mere appendages of the elite they once sought to counter, retarding instead of advancing the progressive causes they claim to still champion.
Thus, though they differ in their approaches, different sections of the Philippine left find themselves similarly hobbled, unable to mobilize the masses along a truly radical and system-changing path and bring about the birth of the alternative social order they envision. A growing number of the oppressed are more open to alternatives, as signified by their support for populists who rile against the “oligarchy” or those who have maintained the status quo. But the left has so far proven unable to decisively capture their imagination, win their confidence, and lead the way.
The result is captured by the well-known line from a martyred comrade: ‘The old world is dying but the new cannot be born.’
IV.
We believe there is a way out.
We believe there is a way out.
We believe that a new civilization can—and ought to—be finally born. Indeed, we believe that it is precisely the old world now crumbling that is helping give birth to this new world. We believe that we can—and ought to—build on the achievements of this old world—its tremendous productivity, its socialization of production, its technological and cultural achievements—in order to make it possible for everyone to live well and to find meaning in their lives. We are of the view that these large gains in wealth production, heretofore monopolized and appropriated mainly by an insignificant elite class, can and ought to equitably be distributed among all working people and harnessed for the people’s wellbeing.
Though we come from very different perspectives, we are all nonetheless convinced of one thing: That we cannot survive as a species, let alone flourish as individuals and as communities, unless we radically transform the society and the world we live in.
To achieve this goal of building a new world, we seek to try out a different strategy or to embark on a different course—one that builds on the insights of previous and ongoing efforts to transform society by others on the left but which also seeks to learn from their errors and transcend their limitations.
To begin with, we believe that reforms, or gradual improvements within the framework of existing society, are definitely necessary—and we ought to push them as far as we can take them.
We should struggle for full employment and a national minimum wage that guarantees a life of dignity for all. We need to advocate for shorter work hours, more paid leaves, and longer holidays for workers. We ought to push for the massive expansion and improvement of public health and other social services. To finance this, we must fight for a significant wealth tax on billionaires and move towards the most progressive taxation possible within capitalism. We need to carry out a more thorough and uncompromising land reform program so as to once and for all break up the country’s large estates and change production relations in the countryside. We have to pursue a just transition away from fossil fuels as soon as possible to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
In addition, we need to push for the legalization of abortion and divorce and we have to fight for marriage equality, and the legalization of alternative household arrangements for LGBTQIA+ people. Recognizing that our criminal justice system is intrinsically biased against working people, we must push for the decriminalization of drug use, move towards the decarceration of non-violent offenses; increase eligibility for parole; shift resources away from policing the oppressed towards providing more social services for the oppressed; and carry out various other measures aimed at reorienting the penal system away from disciplining and punishing the poor and the weak towards meting out justice against plunderers, corrupt officials, abusive employers, and others.
This list is by no means complete, but the principle is clear: We have to fight for everything and anything that can at least lessen the harm being inflicted on nature and alleviate the suffering of workers and other subordinated groups. This entails not merely lobbying or engaging in public campaigns but helping workers, women, LGBTQ, the decarcerated and other oppressed groups build or strengthen trade unions, associations, and other organizations aimed at enhancing their collective capacity to defend themselves and advance their interests within existing society.
But let us be clear: Feeding slaves with better food does not end their slavery. Cutting ninety nine trees instead of one hundred trees does not put a stop to the devastation of the forests. Even the most radical reforms will not save us.
For as long as a tiny minority continues to own the means of production while the great majority have nothing but their bodies and their chains, the degradation of nature and of working people will continue.
What we need to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis and stop the slow death of millions of people and other species is a broad-based and participative form of democracy in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres of society. We have to build a society in which we can engage in rational deliberation and make decisions on the most fundamental questions of what we are going to produce, how we are going to produce, what we are going to do with the wealth we have produced, how much economic growth we want, what kind of growth, whether we should aim for growth or pursue degrowth, and so on—in short, on what the good life is and how we can live it together.
This can only be possible if we build a society in which the land, machinery, technology, and everything else we need to survive and live well are owned and managed cooperatively and in common, while ensuring space for individual initiatives toward the social good. And this can only be possible if we create such societies across the world—not only in the Philippines but in all countries. In short: this can only be possible if we build a socialist civilization at the national and global level. There can be no democracy and no rational deliberation without socialism just as there can be no socialism without democracy and rational deliberation.
This, however, means we cannot seek to merely soften the antagonisms between classes, we need to create the conditions for the abolition of all classes altogether—not only the bourgeoisie but also the proletariat and all exploited classes everywhere.
This also implies we cannot forge more than just extremely limited and short-term alliances with any section of the ruling classes in the Philippines and other countries; we have to be in constant struggle against them and we have to create the circumstances under which the oppressed are able to wrest economic, political, and social power from them.
Let us not avoid the word: Our only hope lies not merely in reforms but in revolution—a socialist revolution in the Philippines and across countries in the here and now rather than in some distant, unknowable future.
Still, however, abolishing capitalism alone will not suffice. We also need to dismantle the patriarchy and abolish all the other relations of domination installed, reinforced, or otherwise institutionalizedby capitalism, including but not limited to racism, ageism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and carcerality.
Though abolishing capitalism may go far in undermining the foundations of these other forms of subordination, a socialist revolution will not automatically eliminate them—indeed, they may even continue to persist even after the abolition of capitalism and undermine efforts to build socialism. Hence, they also have to be fought today—not in some future phase when the “more important problems” have been resolved.
In order to do all this, we cannot ignore that which has served to underpin capitalism and the various relations of domination it is bound up with: the capitalist state. This calls for what seems to us to be a more promising strategy—one that makes more sense in light of the dramatic changes that have taken place in Philippine society and the global economy over the past half century.
Thus, in recognition of the dominant classes’ waging of a conservative revolution from above and in light of the ways by which imperialism has evolved, we will seek to push not for a “bourgeois democratic” revolution of the classic type but a different kind of democratic revolution capable of countering our elites’ conservative revolution from above, and of thwarting imperialists’ continuing efforts to block social transformation worldwide.
Fully aware that the capitalist state has developed not only its coercive capacities but also its ability to organize consent and discipline the population, we have in mind a protracted struggle of a different kind: not to an interminable guerilla war seeking to surround the cities from the countryside nor to an endless armed urban insurrection similarly focused on vanquishing the state’s repressive apparatus by force, but a long and sustained battle for hearts and minds, seeking to first free the spirits and consciousness of the oppressed from the prisons built by the dominant classes and their army of intellectuals.
We seek to help win this battle by challenging and countering the state’s ideological or disciplinary powers, a task that entails doing anything and everything to help the oppressed rid themselves of the subordinated consciousness inculcated in them by the elites so that they may develop their own innate insights into their conditions and the ways toward their own emancipation. The goal is not merely to undermine despotic rule, but also to resist the infrastructural power to manage and defuse dissent and the discursive power to make us want what the hegemony wants us to want.
At the heart of the economy—in the workplaces and in our communities—we shall also endeavor to set up factory/workplace councils or community councils which will push for productive and reproductive workers to participate more actively in the management of production/reproduction processes, thereby developing their technical and other abilities to eventually self-organize enterprises and communities under socialist society.
Organizing in the workplace or communities through engagement in trade-union or local politics, however, will not suffice. We cannot but engage in the arena to which most of the oppressed have been drawn. Fully aware of the limits of electoral politics, we nonetheless choose to occupy this space and use it to advance our purposes. Thus, we will field and campaign for socialists in local and national elections—those who are unwilling to conceal their socialist aspirations and values just to be accepted and those who will be accountable to the movement as they campaign and even as they occupy office.
And we will do so not simply to propagandize but in order to win—but “win” in the deepest sense: not only to gain the most number of votes but also to change the discourse, surface to the mainstream our vision and program, popularize socialism, advance ongoing struggles, and galvanize the working-class movement. The goal is to develop an all-year-round and lifelong political consciousness among the oppressed that goes beyond participation in the electoral process and allows them to engage and confront the state, the capitalist class, and all oppressive sectors and institutions.
Complementing our engagement in workplace organizing or electoral politics, we will also go beyond elections and seek to empower ourselves and our fellow members of the oppressed by providing mutual aid to each other and to others in the community. We will do this by establishing our own alternative political, cultural, and economic institutions, such as our own network of cooperatives, educational hubs, research networks, social centers, pantries, community gardens, disaster relief channels, media and information outlets, training centers, cultural and sports clubs, and so on.
As part of this effort, we will identify and seize local spaces where the state is unable to deliver and attempt to build local organs of power and development. These will provide training grounds for a new type of governance that can be brought over and integrated into a socialist system in the future while providing concrete support for the oppressed in the present.
In other words, even as we participate in existing political spaces, we will also create, carve out, and expand our own autonomous, prefigurative, and disruptive bases of power within existing society—spaces where we can directly disturb and counter the logic of the existing economic system, experiment on, and develop our own alternative institutions, put in place new kinds of social relationships, build a solidarity economy or new more cooperative types of economic arrangements, enhance our ability to carry out self-governance, and give people a glimpse of the alternative society we envision.
But also fully aware that the state’s repressive apparatus has also expanded, we will at the same time prepare for the inevitability that elites will use direct violence against us and the people we work with. In the face of such danger, we shall actively organize to strengthen our ability to defend ourselves from current and future attacks—by building up our ability to defend ourselves in court, support those from our ranks who are arrested, and so on. Our best defense will be a strong and vigilant mass movement ready to mobilize national and global public opinion should any of our comrades or communities be subjected to state repression or terrorism.
In line with this, we depart from others on the left who condemn armed struggle. Though we will not at the moment engage in it as a party, we recognize that violence is legitimate and necessary under certain circumstances, in the same way that the violence that slaves employed in breaking their chains was legitimate and necessary.
So in contrast to those who limit themselves to reforming the state from within the boundaries permitted by elites, we do not rule out the need for a more concerted defensive campaign against the ruling classes’ efforts to indefinitely perpetuate their inherently violent rule. When we face an all-out assault, when a large section of the oppressed are firmly on our side, and when the dominant classes have been reduced to relying exclusively on coercion to maintain their power, we can fight back and we have to fight back.
Our proposed strategy—articulated here only in broad strokes but to be further clarified and specified in subsequent documents—is therefore comprehensive and conjunctural: it cannot be reduced to merely engaging in electoral politics or to providing mutual aid and it cannot be limited to just one form of struggle chosen a priori based only on principle rather than on the existing circumstances.
What we seek is to first build dual power—power within but also outside the spaces and logics of existing society—by all means necessary. Which of those means will be necessary, and which arena or area of work will receive more of our energy and resources at any given time will always depend on existing conditions and will therefore be subject to constant review and democratic debate in light of our goals and principles.
But one thing will be constant: the goal of this strategy is not merely to reform the capitalist state or put more workers or more socialists in its legal institutions. The goal is to create the conditions for abolishing the capitalist state altogether and for establishing a fundamentally new society, not only in the Philippines but across the world. We seek an end to proletarianization through the abolition of wage-labor, valorization, alienation, and policing. Hence, even as we engage in the existing political arena and build parallel, mutually-reinforcing bases of power beyond this arena, our objective is not to capture the capitalist state machine and use it for our purposes but to prepare the ground for its eventual dismantlement and to lay the foundations for a socialist civilization.
To transition to this new civilization, we must prepare to establish a new transitional organization capable of doing two things at once: ensure that the forces of oppression are never able to return to power while at the same time creating the conditions for an end to all forms of oppression.
This is an immense undertaking—one that requires permanent mobilization and tremendous sacrifices from the oppressed. In order to continue to rally people behind this difficult project and in order to ensure that this new organization does not become a new power over the oppressed, we must ensure that such an organization upholds the dignity and autonomy of every single oppressed individual, ensure that all representatives are as directly chosen as possible and subject to recall anytime, bureaucratic work is rotated among everyone, officials are paid only enough in wages as to prevent holding office from becoming a career, etc.
Once in place, this transitional organization’s role must be limited to further realizing the conditions for socialism—conditions that are already present but that remain unrealized in present society. This includes moving production away from accumulation towards taking care of people; shortening the working day; redistributing the burden of reproductive work away women and LGBTQs by making child care and other reproductive activities the responsibility of the entire community; eliminating any remaining hierarchical structures in the workplace or in the community; delimiting and defunding police or police-like bodies and systematically decreasing their functions until their abolition; dismantling the prison system; and so on.
To carry out all these things, this transitional organization must be able to assert its authority—but this authority should always rest on the consent of the people and never on coercion. Even as it must keep force in the background to defend itself against counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs, it should aim to avoid merely establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, it should bring about a hegemony of the proletariat and of all oppressed groups. The emergence of a dictatorship of a single party must be avoided at all costs.
The goal of this transitional organization should not be forgotten at any point: to make itself unnecessary by building the conditions for a classless and stateless society free of all forms of domination.
By a ‘stateless society’ it should be clear that we do not mean a society without rules or norms, without coordination, and therefore without order. Even as we have abolished the classes, we will still need to establish a more enduring collective organization to create and maintain the conditions for collective flourishing.
This organization, however, should not be in the form of the state, understood as an organization with a bureaucratic apparatus standing separate from the governed and with bodies of armed men standing above the people. It can be—and it ought to be—a real and free association of autonomous, self-governing, and mutually-caring producers in which the administration of people will be replaced by the administration of things and in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, to borrow the words of other revolutionaries that have come and fought before us.
For us to be able to do all of this—to counter the capitalist state, abolish all forms of domination, and build a new civilization—we need a broad, unified, and cohesive mass movement composed of all oppressed classes and subordinated groups but grounded in and led by the only class with both the material capacity and motivation to create a new world: the working class, broadly defined to include not only all productive workers but anyone who is compelled to toil for a living in urban, rural, and upland areas, including all reproductive workers.
We must constantly affirm one thing: the emancipation of the oppressed can only be the work of the oppressed themselves.
But for us to be part of this struggle for self-emancipation and to push this struggle forward, we need a renewed, reinvigorated left—one that acknowledges and appreciates the immense contributions of its pioneers and yet is committed to ruthless criticism of all that exists, one that is able to inspire and win the confidence of the oppressed, and one that is therefore capable of providing moral and intellectual leadership to all those fighting for liberation.
For us to build this renewed left, we need a new socialist party—one that recognizes and builds on the great achievements of other socialist parties established in the past but that also seeks to overcome their limitations, learn from their missteps and errors, and break new ground.
This is the party we seek to establish.
V.
Outraged by the ongoing degradation of the planet and of people, convinced that another world is necessary, and determined to help create such a world together,
we have joined hands to begin the process of establishing a new political organization—
One that is not only openly and resolutely socialist but also openly and resolutely democratic, feminist, Queer, environmentalist, internationalist, anti-racist, abolitionist, anti-ableist, anti-ageist, and against all other forms of domination at the same time.
We have resolved that our overarching goal is to build a socialist society, in which everyone is able to flourish and achieve their full creative potential. Though our immediate terrain of struggle is the Philippines, we recognize that this goal cannot be accomplished if it is undertaken in one country alone. Together with comrades from other countries, we seek to build a worldwide socialist civilization, in which all are able to achieve freedom.
With this aim in mind, we seek to invigorate the left, to build a new socialist culture, so as to strengthen our capacity to help build a working-class-led movement able to prevail over the struggle against the oppressors and build the foundations of the civilization we envision.
We have resolved that this party which we seek to establish is to be grounded in the same values on which we seek to construct the alternative society we envision. These values are to guide our organizational life and should be reflected in our constitution and by-laws, our decision-making processes, our dispute-resolution mechanisms, etc. They include but are not limited to the following:
First, respect for individual autonomy and dignity: We will at all times ensure that we do not infringe on any member’s capacity to decide for themselves, such as by saying or doing things on behalf of them or with them without their consent. We will not force any of our members to do or say anything that they do not believe in or agree with.
Second, democracy: In line with our respect for our member’s autonomy and dignity, our party will say nothing and do nothing that is not approved by the membership or that did not go through collective decision-making processes established by the organization. Consensus is to be the preferred means of arriving at decisions; only where consensus has proven to be impossible after much effort will voting be resorted to. In terms of leadership, we will work to keep our organizational structure as horizontal as possible and actively work to prevent it from becoming top-down. We will put in place mechanisms by which to ensure accountability from our leaders or any paid staff, periodically reviewing these mechanisms to ensure they are effective.
Third, equality: We recognize the class, gender, and other inequalities among us and we shall strive to always ensure that those among us who are male or cis-gender, wealthier, more formally educated, more socially connected, etc. do not have more voice or do not exercise more privileges or advantages in our organization on the basis of these advantages. We will expend resources, energy, and time for translation or interpretation, travel support for members who live far away, child care support for those who need it, and so on. During meetings, facilitators are to ensure that women, Queer, working-class members, etc. are accorded more time and space in terms of speaking and other opportunities. Constant reminders about the inequalities that exist within our party as well as constant reflection about the ways overt or hidden power relations exist in our organization are to be encouraged and institutionalized.
Fourth, collective improvement through constructive evaluations and discussion: We seek to constantly develop ourselves as individuals and as a collective and we believe that one way to do this is through constant reflection and through constant criticism and discussion with others. In line with this, we seek to create a space in which everyone is made to feel safe or even encouraged to disagree with or criticize others (especially those who are dominant or who are in leadership positions). We will strive to find ways by which we can use our differences into sources of strength rather than of weakness. At no point will we use violence to resolve our differences or to penalize those who disagree with us.
Fifth, collective empowerment: We will strive to provide all our members with opportunities for self-improvement. That means giving everyone the opportunity to lead, to develop their ability to speak in public, to organize, to perform various tasks, to be better at certain skills, and so on. In line with this, we will keep the term limit of any leadership position as short as practicable and prevent a few people (i.e. the most charismatic, articulate, well-connected, etc.) from monopolizing positions that come with power or certain perks. Opportunities for travel, education, etc. are to be decided not only in line with practical considerations but also in line with our objective of helping build everyone’s capacity for struggle.
Sixth, mutual care: The physical as well as psychological health and welfare of our members will be our top priority. We will devote resources, time, and energy to building our collective capacity to provide sustainable assistance to those who are suffering from illness or who are dealing with mental problems. We will seek to create a safe space for everyone and provide help to those who may become the victim of physical, sexual, or other forms of aggression or violence within the organization. As part of our efforts to build a solidarity economy, we will also explore setting up sustainable livelihood projects, cooperatives, a revolving fund, and emergency mechanisms for those of our members who are in dire need of food, housing, or other basic necessities while always guarding against the danger of these projects becoming sources of corruption and conflict within the organization.
Seventh, fairness and equity: Recognizing that one’s ability to provide voluntary service to any organization depends on one’s class, gender, age or physical abilities, we will strive to provide adequate compensation (including for health care, retirement benefits, etc.) for all those who work full-time or part-time for the party while also avoiding creating a layer of bureaucrats who develop an interest in maintaining their privileges. In dividing labor, we will be mindful of the class, gender, and other structures which work to prevent members from giving more of their time to the party, and we will avoid guilt-tripping or insinuating that those who cannot render more work or who demand more compensation are somehow less committed to the movement.
Eighth, accountability and rehabilitation: We will never tolerate any form of violence against women (e.g. rape and sexual harassment) and other oppressed groups in our organization. The same goes through for other acts of violence, including verbal or emotional abuse, committed by any of our members. We shall put in place clear and transparent mechanisms by which we will deal with these cases. Our first principle in this regard is not imposing the burden of proof on survivors. We will not only provide assistance and support for all victims but also help them in their efforts to receive justice. At the same time, we will give the accused the due process they deserve within a framework that goes beyond the limits of bourgeois and patriarchal justice. We pursue restorative justice, centered on the welfare of survivors, while seeking rehabilitation for offenders.
In line with these aims and principles, we have also resolved that our party must strive to acquire the following characteristics.
First: Our party is to be grounded in the working people and in the oppressed. We will do our best to avoid being yet another sect of intellectuals or petty-bourgeois activists speaking for but actually alienated from the masses. We will deliberately foster the conditions that can enable more people to be part of and to lead our organization. This should be reflected not only in the issues we work on or in the campaigns we carry out but in such mundane matters as where we will establish our headquarters, what language/s we speak during our meetings, and so on. At the same time, however, we will strive to avoid romanticizing the masses, recognizing as well that many of us belong to the masses ourselves. We recognize that all of us are products of an oppressive society and that collective struggle is needed to overcome the negative effects of life-long social conditioning. In line with this, we also reject the denigration of beliefs or values wrongly believed to be the monopoly or property of those from the middle or upper classes, such as the concern for individuality, personal autonomy, and democracy.
Second: Our party is to be uncompromisingly opposed to all forms of domination: At no point will we pander to chauvinist nationalism or help fan the flames of xenophobia, sexism, racism, ageism and so on just to advance some short-term objective such as winning elections or becoming more “accepted” by the mainstream. While we will take account of existing prejudices among those we seek to organize—biases ingrained in them by existing society, we will nonetheless always seek to help others and ourselves overcome them.
Third: Our party is to be membership-driven and membership-oriented. We will strive to not be yet another organization in which only the heads, the leading bodies, or the full-time paid staff make the most important decisions while the rank-and-file members are reduced to ratifying their decisions, in congresses where the most important decisions have already been made prior to the meetings. Instead, we seek to be a living, breathing party kept alive and made stronger by constant and thoroughgoing rank-and-file participation and mobilization.
Fourth: Our party is to be autonomous from the parties or organizations of the elite and of the petty-bourgeoisie. We will always be open to working with other groups and political forces that also support our immediate objectives. We seek a united front against fascism and dictatorship that avoids the mistakes and errors of previous attempts to build such a front. In forging any alliances or partnerships, however, we will always be guided by one overarching goal: building up the autonomous capacity of the socialist and proletarian movement. Even when we join forces with representatives of the oppressors in pursuit of common tactical goals, at no point will we allow ourselves to be under their command or to be conveyor belts of their propaganda.
That means that during elections or other political struggles, we will always support those who seek to advance the socialist project and build a radical transformative movement over other candidates, including liberals. This also means that we will always strive to be self-sustaining: Even as we are open to receiving resources or other forms of support from mainstream foundations or donors, we will fight back against “NGO-ization” and we will work to avoid being donor-driven.We will strive to ensure that the bulk of our resources come from membership dues.
Fifth: our party is to be unifying and non-sectarian. We are committed to helping create the conditions for the eventual unification of all proletarian or revolutionary groups or parties which seek to establish socialism and abolish all forms of domination. In line with this, we will be firm in our convictions but we will also be willing to work with all other forces on the left who share our short-term or long-term objectives. We shall seek to establish comradely and also mutually respectful relationships with other socialist organizations. In forging tactical unity among revolutionaries, we will be guided by the view that expressing disagreements and constructive criticisms of others on the left can also be warranted and productive. In building or working inside progressive coalitions, we will strive to avoid the all-too common but extremely destructive practice of putting the organizational and sectarian interests of one’s party over the larger interests of the left and the working-class movement.
Sixth: our party is to be respectful of the autonomy of social movements and other resistance groups. We shall work actively as part of the trade union movement, the landless peasants’ movement, the women’s movement, the LGBTQIA+ movement, and so on. We shall strive to persuade them of our views and our proposed courses of action, including openly criticizing them when necessary. But at no point will we attempt to substitute for them or subordinate them to our party. On the contrary, we will work to uphold their freedom to decide for themselves and take their own initiatives—even or especially when they go against our own party’s preferences.
Seventh: we seek to be a party that is not afraid to make mistakes and that also learns from mistakes. We will foster experimentation and endeavor to be a laboratory of struggle—a safe space where different ideas for analyzing society, for building the movement, and for achieving our objectives can be conceived, put forward, and tested out in line with our principles.
Consistent with this, we will actively encourage criticism. We believe that we don’t have a monopoly on insight and that there is much we can learn from others who share our objectives. So even as we hold on to and openly proclaim our goals and values, we will nonetheless seek to foster an atmosphere in which others can freely and openly criticize us and any aspect of our work. In our view, a new left must qualitatively break with the rigidity of the old practices and put forward fluidity and plurality consistent with our fundamental values and goals.
Eighth: our party is to be prefigurative, where our current organizing ought to anticipate the kind of free society we want, where the unity of means and ends is upheld. The way we organize ourselves, the way we make decisions, the way we handle disagreements, the ways we relate to each other as comrades, the ways we relate with the working people—all this should give people a glimpse of the alternative world we envision and enjoin them to also want to be part of building such a world. Though we must also at all times bear in mind that we too are only products of our society—and hence that we suffer from all sorts of limitations ourselves, we shall strive as individuals and as a collective to overcome these limitations. We also recognize that the conditions for the alternative society we envision are not yet fully in place and that this may limit our ability to be prefigurative, but this is precisely what shall drive us to struggle so that those conditions are put in place.
How we are to pursue the above-mentioned goals, how we are to uphold the principles we seek to uphold, and how we are to organize and run the party so as to be consistent with these principles: all of these are to be periodically and democratically reviewed by all of our members. So is our reading of society and the world we live in. We seek to be a party that is in a constant process of reflection and renewal.
We will not get everything right immediately. Relations of domination or inequality within our own party could persist and we may not succeed in abolishing them overnight. We may stray from the values enumerated above or fail to live up to the expectations we have set for ourselves. We will make mistakes. We will suffer from all sorts of shortcomings. But we will be criticized, corrected, and, most importantly, supported by each other. Together, we shall constantly struggle to be better.
We invite all those who share our vision and our values to join us in building this party and in constructing a new world together.