July 10, 1993
This statement is a declaration of autonomy by the entire regional party organisation against the illegal authority of the absolutist “Central Committee” headed by Armando Liwanag. From this day on, we sever our ties with the illegal and absolutist circle that passes itself off as the “Central Committee” of the CPP.
The Manila-Rizal Regional Committee (MRRC) is solidly united in this decision. The Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB), the armed forces of the regional party committee and the partisan organisation of the NPA in the national capital region, join us in this declaration.
We are supported in this decision by the vast majority of the party membership in the region. Of our almost 5,000 members, only 68 declared their lot to the illegal centre, while only 5 out of 300 branches sided with Armando Liwanag. All the district committees and regional bureaux and staff, and all the section committees except one are with us in this decision.
For us, autonomy is the only correct step against the absolutism of Armando Liwanag. In declaring autonomy, the entire regional party organisation severs its ties only with the illegal “Central Committee” led by Armando Liwanag, and not with the party or its entire national organisation. Armando Liwanag is not the party and the party is not Armando Liwanag.
The MRRC and the regional party organisation asserts itself as a legitimate party organ. It shall maintain links and continue to abide loyally to the party. But it shall not surrender nor let itself be abused by the illegal circle of absolutist elements pretending to be the party centre. Our resolve to fight absolutism is, in itself, a concrete manifestation of our loyalty to te principles and spirit of the party.
We shall never recognise the authority of the illegal and absolutist leadership of Armando Liwanag. We shall submit only to a legitimate authority and leadership of the party. And this shall be a Central Committee elected by the National Congress of the party, a centre abiding by the Constitution and the Party’s principles of democratic centralism.
Due to the absence of a legitimate national centre, the party’s integrity as a unified and centralised organisation is gravely impaired. Only through the convening of a Second Congress shall its authority as a national organisation be restored, for it is in this Congress that a legitimate national leadership shall be elected.
Under present conditions, with the crisis in leadership and unity within the party, there is no legitimate authority other than the National Congress. It is the highest assembly of the party and the formal expression of its unity and will. The present crisis should be resolved through the Congress.
It is legitimate for party members to learn from the bitter experiences of all proletarian parties which have collapsed in many countries. All of them failed and disintegrated - and in former socialist countries, were rejected by their own people - not only because the party membership submitted to the revisionism and opportunism of the leadership, but also because they succumbed to fanaticism and allowed themselves to be cowed by absolutism.
These parties failed and disintegrated not because of the militancy of their members, but because of the absence of the militancy of their members, but because of the absence of a Bolshevik militancy distinctive of Leninism. In these parties, Bolshevism was dislodged by a fanaticism and absolutism characteristic of Stalinism. Unable to defeat revisionism and opportunism because of the fanaticism and absolutism among their ranks, the leadership of these parties degenerated until they were finally overthrown by the proletarian masses.
Autonomy against Absolutism
Absolutism in a proletarian party means the tyrannical rule of Stalinism, an anti-Marxist ideological contraband smuggled into the party under the guise of Leninism.
It is an abusive and absolute system of authority that tramples upon the organisational principles and rules of a proletarian party. It wholly subverts the democratic-centralist spirit of a proletarian party and dilutes the revolutionary will of its cadres and members. Its ideological underpinning is idealism and fanaticism that reaches to the level of cultism.
Our party is held prey by this kind of absolutism. No wonder, because the Leninism of Armando Liwanag is pure and simple Stalinism. In the MRRC’s documents related to the internal struggle, we repeatedly proved the existence of this kind of absolutism within the CPP leadership. Suffice it to sum up now the basic characteristics of Armando Liwanag’s absolutism:
First: This absolutism is dictatorship. It is an illegal usurpation of authority wielded through gross violation of the party Constitution. It is a centralism that is beyond any control, authority and organisational rule of the party. The “Central Committee” of Armando Liwanag lords it over the party and does not intend to submit itself to it.
Second: This absolutism is ultra-centralism. It is an iron hand that brandishes absolute authority, pounces on internal democracy, abuses te principles of party centralism and persecutes the entire membership of the party.
Third: This absolutism is cultism. Through sheer idealism and fanaticism it misappropriates the name of the party and the interest of the revolution so as to smuggle an illegal authority and an ultra-centralist method of rule within the party. For the absolutists, the party is the Central Committee and the Central Committee is Armando Liwanag.
Fourth: This absolutism means intrigues. It is the mastering of various forms of black propaganda and campaigns of lies and slander within the party. It is sheer sloganeering, demagoguery and a distortion of truth under the pretext of “class truth”.
Fifth: This absolutism is monolithic. Its concept of a party is an organisation whose centre of leadership possesses a monopoly of correct ideas. Its criteria for unified action are one-track mindedness and blind faith.
The units and organs of the party and its cadres and members in the region cannot stomach this kind of absolutism. Thus, the declaration of autonomy is at one a declaration of principle and a principled stand of the entire regional party membership.
This is not the revolutionary party of the proletariat that we have come to join. This is not the kind of party that can lead the proletariat and the masses to revolutionary victory.
For the MRRC, although unity within the party is essential, the question of principle is far more crucial. Party unity should be based on principled unity. The regional party organisation cannot unite with absolutism because it runs counter to Marxism-Leninism. We cannot give preference to party unity for it means unity with absolutism, if not outright surrender of principles.
There is no sense in keeping an internal party unity founded on absolutism as this kind of party has long ceased to be a revolutionary party; and thus, no matter how it wills itself to victory, it shall not be able to lead the revolution to this end.
The declaration of autonomy by the regional party organisation is not only a declaration of principle against absolutism, and not only a declaration of independence from the absolutist party “centre”. It is also a declaration of our firm resolve to expose, oppose and defeat the absolutism at te top of the party.
From a foray of accusation ranging from “factionalism” and “splittism”, the absolutist circle of Armando Liwanag has since shifted to unsubstantiated charges that the opposition forces are “counter-revolutionaries” and “specil enemy agents”.
Last May 1, in statements coming from Utrecht, Netherlands by the so-called Central Committee of the party, the ranks of the opposition were declared officially composed of “special enemy agents of te Ramos regime”. On May 10, the so-called “KKTS” (Executive Committee of the CC) declared that the struggle is not any more an ideological one, but a “political struggle between the pro-party and the anti-party forces”, “a struggle between revolution and counter-revolution”.
Now, it is no longer Jose Maria Sison, in his “baptismal name”, who is venturing into this line of attack which has started since December 1992. It is now the “official line” used by the “Central Committee” of Armando Liwanag against the opposition.
There is no more glaring proof of Stalinism than this. This line and style of attack has all the traits of Stalinism. Stalin has the original franchise to this line and style of party struggle. He accused all his opponents of being “enemies of the people” and “imperialist spies” before he lined them up to the wall.
Armando Liwanag’s “70-30” evaluation of Stalin indicates adherence to this Stalinist line. For Armando Liwanag, part of the “70% positive” rating of Stalin is this line and style of party struggle. This is now what he copies. This Stalinist method of dealing with the opposition has never been a part of the “30% excesses” of Stalin.
In the official declaration of the “CC” last May 1 and the “KKTS” on May 10, they publicly confirmed that they have no intention of uniting with the opposition whom they considered “counter-revolutionaries” and “special enemy agents”. Their policy is nothing more than absolutist repression and suppression of the opposition.
In fact, they have upheld this policy since the start. In the first version of the document “Reaffirm”, Armando Liwanag has stirred up this threat. With the outbreak of the struggle following the bogus 10th CC Plenum, the absolutist policy of suppressing the opposition was unleashed through the absolutist rules contained in the so-called rectification movement.
Thus, the May 1 declaration of the “CC” and the May 10 declaration of the “KKTS” merely confirmed their previous policy of absolutist suppression and repression of the opposition.
Under absolutism, all means are permissible, and are part of a total struggle against “counter-revolutionaries” and “special enemy agents” within the party. This clearly attests to the lack of principles and scruples of the Stalinist system of absolutism.
The declaration of autonomy by the entire regional party organisation is also a self-defence against the absolutist attacks of Armando Liwanag and his absolutist lackeys. In this declaration, we totally condemn the absolutist and bankrupt line of the “Central Committee” of Armando Liwanag, while we categorically declare their centre to be illegal and bogus. From now on, they have no right to interfere with the affairs of the regional party organisation, nor the right to brandish an illegal authority and to sow intrigues, factionalism and splittism within the party.
For if there are factionalists and splittism in the party, if there are genuine anti-party elements within the organisation, they are none other than the absolutist lackeys of Armando Liwanag.
In essence, absolutism is factionalism and splittism, for it does not recognise nor respect the rules of the party, but it also tramples upon its principles of democratic centralism.
They are the factionalists because they refuse to submit to the authority of the party as embodied in the Constitution and the holding of the second Congress that will elect the Central Committee and decide the fate of the “rectification movement”.
They are the splittists because they attempt to transform ideological struggle into political struggle between the so-called pro-party and the anti-party forces, between the “revolution and counter-revolution”. In this kind of struggle, they are the ones plunging the party into depths of antagonism and split.
The declaration of autonomy by the regional party organisation is clearly not factionalism and splittism. It is a principled declaration of independence against the illegal and absolutist rule of te “Central Committee” of Armando Liwanag, not a secession from the entire party organisation. It aims to impose genuine party spirit and implements democratic centralism founded in the Party Constitution, which is realisable only through the holding of a second Party Congress.
Declaring autonomy against the absolutist and illegal “centre” is an inalienable and unrestrainable right of the cadres and members and organs and units of the party which upholds the Marxist-Leninist party. A principled unity that can only be achieved through the convening of the second Party Congress.
The regional party organisation declares autonomy on the basis of the Stalinist absolutism of the “Central Committee” of Armando Liwanag. We have decided on this because these absolutist elements restrict and suppress the principled conduct of ideological struggle and make a mockery of principled unity within the party.
Under this absolutism there can never be a sensible ideological struggle within the party. Armando Liwanag wants a monolithic and fanatic party where he alone has a monopoly of correct ideas and a franchise to determine right and wrong. Those who oppose him are considered counter-revolutionaries. Armando Liwanag believes till now that he is the heart and mind of the party.
Armando Liwanag wields absolutism to force his dogmatism down the throat of every party member. This dogmatism is the ideological basis of the crisis in the party and its most essential problem today. But instead of resolving it through ideological struggle and constitutional processes, Armando Liwanag aggravates the crisis by resorting to absolutism. Dogmatism and absolutism combined is the fundamental problem and the root cause of the present crisis within the party. The struggle against absolutism is a struggle against dogmatism, both of which prevail now upon the party.
The clearest evidence and the worst example of dogmatism ravaging the Party is the “Reaffirm” document of Armando Liwanag. It dogmatically explains the reason for the decline of the revolutionary movement since 1986 and proposes to remedy it with the same dogmatism which has been its problem at the outset.
For Armando Liwanag, the complex problem leading to the decline of the revolutionary movement can simply be explained and remedied. Following a simple explanation on why the former socialist countries have “collapsed” - i.e. due to the “modern revisionism” of their parties - he now prescribes the simplistic solution of raising anew the banner of Mao Zedong Thought.
Armando Liwanag explains away the decline of the revolutionary movement in the country by the party’s deviation from the “basic principles” of a protracted people’s war. These so-called principles are nothing more than his own fabrication. Thus for him the solution is very simple - to “reaffirm” these “basic principles”, to return to the decades-long practice which is in accord with his concept of a protracted war and to return the party practice since 1986 to 1977 when Amado Guerrero was still its Chairman.
Simply put, the revolutionary movement is heading to a defeat not because it failed to cope with the prevailing condition and develop effective tactics given a rich accumulation of experiences and lessons, but because it deviated from a set of “principles” and “design” of revolutionary advance first laid down by Amado Guerrero during the Party’s re-establishment in 1968.
For Armando Liwanag, the party needs only to “reaffirm” the principle of protracted people’s war - the military line of three strategic stages and of encircling the cities from the countryside - and reject the “regularist” and “insurrectionist” line of thinking deviating from these principles and the Philippine Revolution will once more advance towards victory. It means that the party’s problem is not its incapacity to develop revolutionary tactics in the face of changing conditions, but its failure to “loyally” and “faithfully” adhere to a defined set of principles laid down not only in 1968 but during the time of Mao.
This is Armando Liwanag’s pure dogmatisation and vulgarisation of Marxism-Leninism. In fact, Armando Liwanag is the real militarist within the Party since, to him, the people’s democratic revolution is reducible to a protracted people’s war. To him, war is revolution and revolution is war. It is ironic that he desires war but knows nothing of war; he is, in fact, a militarist with no military know-how. He cannot even understand the theory of protracted war as conceived by Mao, and if there is anyone deviating from this theory, it is no other than Armando Liwanag himself.
It is high time to assess and judge the conduct of the revolutionary conduct of the revolutionary struggle in the country for the past 24 years. Indeed, the movement has made great advances since its beginning in 1968. However, it cannot be said that the effort spent in unrelenting struggle and the sacrifices made by thousands of cadres, Red fighter and the Filipino masses.
Comparing our experiences with the successful revolution in other countries, the time expended and the sacrifices rendered should have been enough to reach a higher level of struggle where victory looms on the horizon. But if we now make a reckoning, the number of lives offered by the cadres, Red fighters and revolutionary masses far outstrip the growth of the People’s Army in the past 24 years.
The party was offered the most opportune time in history to succeed or come near to it during the 14 years of the fascist Marcos dictatorship. Party cadres and members made great sacrifices in the struggles of the party during that time. But the Party leadership misspent the moment and waylaid the opportunity by wallowing in the quagmire of dogmatism.
Even at the height of a revolutionary flow in 1983-86, the level of strength and advance achieved by the party was very minimal and way below the opportunity and favourable condition presented at that time. It is ironic that when the revolutionary situation erupted in the EDSA uprising, the movement was out behind the scenes and even played the villain’s role in the eyes of the masses.
Since Armando Liwanag reassumed party leadership with the support of the fanatic couple in 1986, the revolutionary movement has experienced incomparable setbacks and defeats. And, instead of assuming full responsibility for such failures, they are hunting down the “regularists” and “insurrectionists” within the party as scapegoats. This, despite the fact that during the time of what they now criticise as a period of setback and defeat brought about by the errors of “regularisation” and “insurrectionism” in Mindanao (1981 - 85), the party achieved the greatest increase in the number of membership, guerilla force and mass base.
It should be viewed that the ebb and failure of the revolutionary movement do not occur in the country but the whole world as well. The international communist movement is undergoing tremendous crises. This is how history takes its toll after decades of predominance of revisionism and opportunism, of fanaticism and cultism within the proletarian party.
In this sense, the call to “reaffirm the basic principles of the party” is absolutely wrong. But this should mean reaffirming and further enriching Marxism-Leninism, a restudy of the basic principles in its original context and substance, and not in accordance with the historical dogmatisation and revisionism of Stalin and was followed by various revisionists and opportunists within the communist movement.
Since Lenin’s death in 1924 and Stalin’s three decades of rule in the international communist movement, the dogmatisation of Marxism-Leninism has emerged and prevailed in a global scale through the smuggling in of a contraband ideology of Stalinism masquerading itself as Marxism-Leninism. After Stalin, varying versions of revisionism and opportunism held sway over the communist movement.
The dogmatisation of Marxism-Leninism degenerated into outright revisionism which flourished into further dogmatisation brought about by the succeeding heirs to Stalinism. In this context, we should grasp the correctness of the call to “reaffirm and further enrich Marxism-Leninism” and not to further plunge it to new depths of dogmatism and revisionism.
There are two possible outcomes to this declaration of autonomy. Either a formal reintegration of the regional party organisation under a legitimate national centre through the processes and resolutions of a second Congress or a re-establishment of a Marxist-Leninist party owing to the continued denial and delay of the second Congress despite the broad clamour for it.
The MRRC is ready to submit to any decision of the second Congress be it favourable or not to our position. But for one condition: ensure first the system of democratic representation in the composition of the Congress and the democratic deliberation of the issues to be raised in the Congress.
We are ready any time to rescind our declaration of autonomy should the “Central Committee” of Armando Liwanag agree to suspend their “rectification movement” and prepare for the holding of a second Congress which should decide on the “rectification” movement and all other questions raised in the party struggle.
Under such circumstances, we are ready to recognise a de facto national centre with limited power and prerogatives and whose primary task is to prepare and hold in the earliest possible time the second party Congress.
Despite the absolutism of Armando Liwanag, the MRRC hopes that the outcome of this declaration will be the reintegration and restoration of a strong unity of the entire party under a Marxist-Leninist leadership.
This is premised on a strong belief that the essential conclusions of Armando Liwanag’s “rectification movement” are gravely erroneous. This will be proven by immediate practice resulting from its implementation, especially regarding the “deregularisation” of the NPA. In due time, the bankrupt line of Armando Liwanag will be exposed by practice and will be recognised for what it is by all regional party committees which have followed the absolutist leadership only because of a traditional mode of discipline and centralism in the party.
And in this situation, we are sure that the call for the immediate convening of the second Congress and the repudiation, not only of absolutism and of the “rectification movement”, but also of the absolutists who are conspiring on this, will reverberate in the entire organisation of the CPP and NPA.
If, after the bitter outcome, the absolutists persist in the dogmatic and bankrupt line of the “rectification movement”, and continue to block and delay the holding of a second Congress, the crisis in the party leadership and party unity can only deteriorate further.
Amado Guerrero once said in 1976: “The majority of the cadres and members of the party are surely good”. This statement remains correct and valid. In due time, Armando Liwanag will come to know the truth in this statement mentioned once by Amado Guerrero when he was still a Marxist. On the unquestionable correctness of this statement depends the future of our party.