We are posting here a text from a comrade in Mindanao about the recently controversial issue of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
The MOA provoked protests among sections of the Filipino bourgeoisie and politicians who feel threatened by the ‘expansion’ of power of the Moro bourgeoisie.
We agree on the main premises of comrade Juan that in decadent capitalism, the “right to self-determination” is only to derail the solidarity of the proletariat as an international class. In reality, it is the right of the bourgeois class together with the powerful imperialist nations to dragoon and exploit the working population in the name of nationalism or for creating a nation.
On the other hand, let it be clear that the Moro bourgeoisie (including the leadership of MILF and MNLF) are not “nascent” or “young” bourgeoisie. They are as old as capitalism in the Philippines. The Moro bourgeoisie connived with the Manila-based bourgeoisie in exploiting the Moro workers and people using the same slogan (but only in opposite sides) – nationalism. That is why the GRP is not hesitant to “give-in” to the demands of the MNLF and MILF on the issue of “right to self-determination” because they are united in their objective to chain the working class (Moro and Filipino) to the rule of the exploiting class.
Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition period is not through the state but over the state. To ensure that the transition period will move forward to communism, the proletariat must exercise its dictatorship over and independent from the state.
As comrade Juan said, this MOA is not a prelude to peace since in decadent capitalism all inter-factional squabbles of the ruling class (both Moro and Filipino) is a preparation for war. The Manila-based bourgeoisie (including the non-Moro local capitalists in Mindanao) will not voluntarily surrender their political and economic power in Mindanao to their rival, the Moro capitalist class. It is a war between two factions of the bourgeoisie – Filipino and Bangsamoro, a war between Filipino nationalism and Bangsamoro nationalism in which both the Filipino and Bangsamoro proletariats are being used as cannon-fodders. Whether the BJE/BJA will be approved or not, or the Bangsamoro creates its own nation, as long as capitalism reigns in the world, there will be no peace in Mindanao or in other parts of the planet. Decadent capitalism means war and the only antidote to this is world proletarian revolution.
We also agree that the not-so-powerful imperialist countries in the Middle East especially Saudi Arabia and Libya, as well as Indonesia and Malaysia are very much interested to get a share in exploiting Mindanao and its population in addition to the powerful imperialist countries in the West.
Lastly, we agree what the text highlighted that to achieve genuine peace, Filipino and Moro workers must unite, together with their class brothers and sisters around the world to destroy world capitalism. In other words, Filipino and Moro workers must destroy their ‘own’ bourgeoisies and reject any alliance with them in the name of nationalism or “right to self-determination”. Comrade Juan is right in exposing the treachery of the different leftist organizations in the Philippines on the Moro issue in Mindanao.
INTERNASYONALISMO
August 8, 2008
**********
ON THE BANGSAMORO JURIDICIAL AREA
AN ILLUSORY PEACE
With the recent events in the ongoing ‘off and on again’ peace talks between the leadership of the last remaining mass ‘liberation force’, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front/Bangsamoro Islamic Armed Forces (MILF) and the insurgent Manila chauvinists; and with the announcement in November of 2007 of a so called ‘finalized’ peace agreement and its recent ratification for the creation of the Bangsamoro Juridicial (sic) Area (BJA); a number of militant workers and thinking rank and file soldiers of all camps have raised questions and doubts on their continued allegiance to their respective groups that are engaged in this so called struggle for self-determination or of petty imperialist oppression.
To the Marxists, it is evident that far from being an advance for the working class of ‘Bangsamoro’ this new ‘peace agreement’ (that is as illusionary as all hitherto ‘peace agreements’) would at best, merely result in a further land ‘carve up’ between respective capitalists to create a more precise territorial division, this, in preparation for the creation of the ‘Bangsamoro Autonomous Region’ (BAR); expanding the previous ‘Autonomous Region of Moslem Mindanao’ (ARMM) to cover areas of MILF influence previously left aside further to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) – Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) ‘peace agreement’ of 1996. Alongside this further division of ‘Bangsamoro’ between capitalist spheres, huge tracts of land will remain in the hands of the ‘national’ corporations, the settlers’ elite, multinational corporations, private warlords and ‘politico’ groups.
It is also of note to state that the MNLF is a member of the present administration of the GRP under the Lakas CMD government and that despite such, the Manila chauvinists in preparing new areas or spheres of ‘legitimate’ control by the MILF is further attempting to divide the Moro groups by counter-posing the interest of the MILF elite as against those of their ‘own’ MNLF elite. A further indication of the disingenuine nature of these talks. That the MNLF doth protest too little is another indication of the self interest of these groups with their position of privilege as opposed to the interests of the working class. That the MILF is prepared to engage in this transparent territorial division is also an indication of this elite’s self interest. For what is not on the agenda is the question of national liberation nor of the interest of the majority of the populace of our area – the working class.
PRELUDE TO WAR
To the Marxists, there can never be any form of ‘peace’ between the respective camps of the bourgeoisie, whether Moro or Filipino. To the Marxists, the ploy of national liberation and of national oppression is merely a dispute between different factions of the bourgeois class. Given the absolute nature of economic and social crisis in the region, these respective capitalists employ the worst forms of black propaganda and nationalist sentiment to divert the working class from their real task of the liberation of the world populace to the course of Communism. These so called ‘peace negotiations’ are merely a tactic employed by these warring factions of the bourgeoisie in a vain attempt to stabilize their decaying social and economic order in an attempt to rally their respective proletarian classes to their banner - as cannon fodder in the fight to covet their neighbors’ economies. For despite the ‘1996 Tripoli Agreement’ and numerous other ‘agreements’, these sections of the international bourgeois class, Moro and Filipino, will never decide what they are satisfied with nor can they ever be satisfied even if they do agree. Their own self interest for survival whilst their system moves further into decay will prove that even if this ‘agreement’ does move forward that it will only be a temporary salve to the underlying contradictions of the competing interests of these respective petty imperialist powers. For the consequence of this peace agreement must of course be, again, the continuation of the anarchy of capitalist relations and the continuation of the suffering of the working class and poor farmer of the region. To us the BJA and the BAR are the prelude to further civil and imperialist war in our region.
OUR HISTORY IS THE SAME
We understand that the history of the peoples of Mindanao, the Sulu archipelago, Palawan, Cebu and Sabah, of its indigenous (Lumad) and Moro peoples, is certainly no different to that of other oppressed nations or national minorities in the modern epoch. A history of genocide and of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by colonialism and, in the decadent or degenerative stage of capitalism, by imperialism. This is, for our region, alongside the wholesale abuse by our own Moro leadership and Lumad elders of our communities who act solely in defense of their own interest, their own ‘national’ and class self interest, their own position of privilege, and of wealth. Alongside our own ‘would be’ petty imperialists we have the ‘interest of the world imperialist powers who covert our natural resources and ‘cheap’ labor power.
From the Spanish in the 1600’s to the turn of the 20th Century, the British in the 19-20th century, to the barbarism of US and Japanese imperialism, again to the US and finally with the chauvinists of Manila, the peoples of our region have suffered not only at the hands of these ‘international’ elites, but also at the hands of very own ‘national’ elites. Added to this is the forced introduction of the mainly Visayas settler (from without and within) in the ‘national’ colonialisation of Bangsamoro, who now serve not just the interest of the Philippine bourgeois but their own leaders’ call for Mindanao independence from the Philippines and Bangsamoro as a separate entity ruled by their own arising bourgeoisie. Again the mainly working class Visayas settler have been but the cannon fodder of both the national Philippine elite and their ‘own’ leadership.
NATIONALISM IS BUT A BLIND ALLEY FOR WORKERS
It is clear for us that the last decades of this struggle waged by the MNLF and then the MILF has been but a blind alley for the workers and poor farmers of ‘Bangsamoro’. It has been a counter productive effort; it has been a counter-revolutionary struggle against the interest of the working class in favor of a struggle of one section of capitalism, the Moro ruling class and elites, against other sections of the capitalist class, other sections of the Moro elites, Philippine imperialism and settler capitalism. All the while with Arab, Sino and Western imperialists licking their lips at the prospect of exploiting further the resources of our area.
DOGS IN "COMMUNIST" CLOTHES
The liberation struggle of the Bangsamoro has not been a progressive struggle from the point of working people, quite the opposite it has served to derail the workers’ movement, the workers’ struggle and the class battle for Communism.
Every ounce of support given to this monstrous debacle by so called ‘revolutionaries’ engaged in activities in Mindanao and ‘Bangsamoro’ - the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the Filipino Workers’ Party (PMP), the Revolutionary Workers’ Party [Mindanao] (RPM-M) - has delayed, even derailed and even temporarily destroyed the struggle of the working class.
Combined with their own alliances to various bourgeois factions, both national and ‘regional’, these so called ‘revolutionaries’, who in reality advocate the success of their own bourgeoisie, have the audacity to demand that the working class subordinate and prostrate and sacrifice their lives to the bourgeoisie so that this or that section of the international imperio-capitalist class may achieve success in creating a separate bourgeois enclave(s) or nation(s).
The cost of all these intrigues can only be measured in the loss of life for several hundred thousand workers and poor farmers in the last three decades, the displacement of millions more and the complete rape of the environment. For in all of this, the lives that have been lost are those of the worker and poor farmer; from the rank and file of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), who we term as fellow workers but in the uniform of their capitalist masters, to those drafted into the civil militia of the Citizens’ Action Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU); to the soldiers of the militant groups, the Moro fighters of MNLF and MILF, to the non combatant.
Our families have been deprived of loved ones, producers for income, and parents to our children, and also, we have been deprived of future leaders of the workers’ revolution! These are the results of the inter-imperialist, inter-factional barbarism of the ruling class who use the workers and the poor as cannon-fodder in the name of Filipino nationalism or ‘Bangsamoro’ national self-determination. That is why for us the choice is clear: EITHER THE PROLETARIAT DESTROYS CAPITALISM OR CAPITALISM DESTROYS HUMANITY.
ON THE DECOMPOSITION OF CAPITALISM AND THE ROLE OF THE TRUE REVOLUTIONARIES
As Marxists, we analyze history and our role in that history solely from the point of view of the interest of the world working class. As such our outlook is not defined by national boundaries but is a world outlook. To Marxism any form of nationalism is the opposite of our thought, it is against the interests of the world working class and therefore is counter-revolutionary.
Without such a clear understanding we, as a class as a whole, will not be able to understand our position as the only section of world society that has the capacity and the capability to abolish capitalism and build a new world order.
Our method of thought allows us to analyze events and thereby our reaction and our pro-action in struggle. It is this method of thought and of action, that we call Communism; and it is its adoption by the world working class that will achieve the social development of world society through the overthrow of the bankrupt world capitalist system and eliminate, in turn, all forms of exploitation.
To us, we the working class are the first section of society, in history, from whose emancipation and liberty will necessarily result in the emancipation and liberty of all humanity. That a communist revolution will necessarily be in the interest of all humanity in advancing not only social but economic relations to achieve that emancipation. This is the fundamental basis of our rejection of all forms of class compromise or inter-classist alliances whether they be for national liberation or in the so called anti-imperialist struggles. We stand solely on the side of an independent revolutionary working class struggle globally. To us, all forms of ‘democratic’ or ‘nationalist’ or ‘anti-colonial’ struggles are merely a struggle for a certain faction of the world capitalist class and a diversion away from the real historic task that we as proletarians face – the communist struggle.
All revolutions in history, from the period of primitive man (primitive Communism) and its overthrow to the first development of full inequalities of slave/slave owner society, to landlordism/peasantry (feudalism), to the birth of capitalism in the 16th century, have all resulted in the existence of the rule of one class of society over another. This, because of the scarcity of resources. This scarcity must in turn produce inequality.
With the advancement of capitalism to the end of the 19th century, we have seen an incredible progress of the method and science of production, to the point that capitalism itself, theoretically, could produce through its industry a world of abundance, that in turn, could be utilized to eradicate inequality, privilege and so forth.
The reality – as is all too evident - has been far from this possibility. The advancement of capitalism has turned to its opposite and far from being a progressive system, it is not. Therefore we will not nor as communists cannot support any nationalist struggle as these are only the inter-tribal warfare of one section of the capitalist class against another and serve as no benefit for our revolution. The first major world war of 1914-18 finally demonstrated to the world working class, by the barbaric loss of millions of lives of workers, that capitalism had entered a new stage in its (d)evolution, from its progressive nature of the development of the means of production to its opposite and its capacity for the destruction of the means of production on a mass scale. At this point we have concluded that no capitalist struggle can be progressive. We differentiate our analysis of liberation struggles and theory from this point onwards.
After this demonstration of the barbaric nature of capitalism at world war, we recognize that capitalism had entered its final stage of decline. No longer able to be progressive, its colonialisation of nations had turned to a vicious battle between imperialist nations, large and small with imperialism being a characteristic of all bourgeois nations and all bourgeois striving to form a nation - as with the leaderships of the Moro struggle. In effect the First World War was the first clear demonstration that as world capitalism had arisen it was now to fall as it consumed itself internally and on the world stage. Wars as with economies were no longer national, but international.
Unlike all revolutions of the past, the communist revolution, by the very nature of having to overthrow the world capitalist system, must by itself, be a world revolution. The world working class must itself unite on a world scale as its interest as an exploited class dictate. Our relation to the capitalist system is one in that we are all exploited by the same system and the same people, regardless of what country or region we may live in. We do not, as a class, exploit any other class and our relationship to the elite, to the world bourgeoisie, is as their intractable enemy. As such we must achieve political power as a prelude to achieving economic power. Our task is the creation of a new basis of economy of socialized relations that allow for a world of abundance and in turn the elimination of all forms of exploitation by achieving world political power.
It is within this context of the nature of capitalism and the nature of the working class struggle that we say that all struggles for national liberation, all struggles for the creation of new capitalist states, all struggles for piece-meal reform through bourgeois parliament or trades union organizations has entered into a position opposite to the interest of the world working class.
From the liberation armies, to the trades unions, to the social democratic parties; and to the so called ‘revolutionary parties’, these organizations can but play a single role - as they are in support of the further creation of bourgeois nations and the maintenance of the capitalist system itself - their role is to distract, digress and ultimately divert the working class from its historic task of the liberation of mankind through its dictatorship on a world scale and the creation of a single world under its leadership. This is the reality of social and economic relations since the First World War!
This seizure of political power by the working class is the first act in the revolutionary process of the transformation of society. This means that the first task of the working class is the total destruction of the state apparatus of the bourgeois class, in all nations and regions. It is a world revolutionary outlook!
Since the bourgeois class maintains its power, its exploitation and its privilege through its elections to its ‘parliaments’, its ‘councils’, its ‘courts’ and through its armed wings of the police, army and paramilitaries it is here that the working class must first achieve victory by their destruction – by their annihilation. But it is a task that cannot be done by enjoining the parliamentary process or entering into any established or fixed organization for the working class, as such are controlled by the bourgeoisie such as trades unions or the ‘politicos’ parties’. As our experience has taught us, the ‘politicos’ and the trades unions have become reactionary tools to oppress all those workers that engage in struggle through them. From participation in the ‘party list’ system, to struggle through the trade union mechanism whereby strike action is disallowed through mandatorily and agreed (by the leadership of the trade unions) ‘arbitration’. This is the case of all strike actions in the recent and past periods, from the struggle of the Luisita workers, to the telecommunications sector strike action to the Sumilao farmers’ struggle. To the compromises for finance from the main bourgeois parties by the ‘junior’ party-list politicos such as Bayan-Muna, Partido ng Manggagawa et al. and their voting in accordance with the accepting of party funding from without.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY OUT FOR OUR CLASS – THE STRUGGLE FOR COMMUNISM
It is our conclusion that there is no way out for the working class from the conditions of everyday misery – Filipino or Moro - in the struggle for ‘democratic’ demands or national liberation, for this will achieve nothing for us. There is no way out through the struggle of the parliamentary system. There is no way out through the struggle of the trade union campaign. There is no way out in the nationalist warfares. Our only road lies in the unity of our class against all bourgeois elements and the combination of our power in the armed revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie and their entire system and the establishment by the working class of their own workers’ councils (soviets) - unitary, centralized and class-wide assemblies based on elected and revocable delegates are the organizations that will enable the whole class to exercise power in a truly collective manner. These councils will have a monopoly of the control of arms as the guarantee of the exclusive political power of the working class and control over an independent agency of the state to defend the workers’ revolution. Such councils are an act of the working class that occurs at a distinctive moment in history when the political power of the working class, in a revolution, must go over to begin to build communism or must be defeated as the ruling bourgeois class attempts to defeat it.
Such moments have again and again occurred in history and we verily believe that such will occur again. We are within the beginnings of that process again, on a world scale.
Once power is achieved, the sole rule of the working class must be imposed in order to protect the revolution. No alliance can be made with any other group or class. This is not the rule of a political or revolutionary party, it is not the rule of an alliance of parties; it is the sole rule of the world working class as a whole! This we term the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the exclusive exercise of political power by the working class).
The working class will have the task, in turn, of divesting the elites, the bourgeois class, of their control and ownership of industry, agriculture and economy. This we term as the socialization of the means of production. From one area of economy to another all economic activity will be socialized to ensure that the current system of wage labor is abolished along with production based on commodity exchange and that in turn new forms of economy are developed so as to place first, the needs of humanity.
During this period of the transition from capitalism to communism, capitalists will, until their complete overthrow, exist in some sections of economy and after their overthrow they will exist as non-exploiting layers of society; their power, both political and economic having been taken away from them. But they will seek a return to their position of privilege and power and to such extent the class struggle will still exist in this transitionary period. To combat such, the role of the working class ‘state’, through its dictatorship will be to protect the advancement of society by preventing the conflicts that will arise from destroying or handicapping the revolution. But as all classes are absorbed into the one socialized humanity, where capitalist economy has fully given over to the socialized communist economy, then the need for the state will wither away and it in itself will disappear. With the absence of classes, with the absence of exploitation, with the absence of oppressed and oppressor there is no need for the state, even a workers’ state, this, as the working class as with all classes will cease to exist. Thus humanity – all humanity will become truly liberated.
WORKING CLASS REVOLUTIONARIES
Revolutionaries are those within the working class who, through the process of experience and understanding – conditions and consciousness – are the first to comprehend the tasks of the working class as a whole, the necessary tactics and process. Given that the reactionary ideas of the bourgeois class, in whatever region or nation, are still to this day the primary ideas of society – even within the so call revolutionary groups – true revolutionary ideas are at present only understood by a minority of society.
This is once again the position of our society. Despite the great leaps forward of the 1986 and 2001 revolutionary periods, both movements for the mass of consciousness by the working class have been decapitated by the so called ‘revolutionaries’ of the ‘politicos’ in the same way that the working class struggle has been decapitated by the movement for self determination.
The need exists therefore for the mutual support and development of ourselves as like minded expressions of the future of the working class struggle - to combine, both for the mutual protection of ourselves – physically and ideologically – and to ensure our ability to disseminate the true ideas of revolution to the awaking strata of the working class that are again looking towards revolutionary means to transform society.
In this process, we are, because of the failures of the past, starting again in the creation of a revolutionary tendency in our region. As a group forming a new revolutionary current our first task is to organize amongst ourselves in readers’ circles whereby we are able to fully investigate our role and our understanding of the principles of working class struggle, Marxism. From this task we will then be able to formulate our capacity to intervene into the wider layers of our class and to disseminate the ideas that we understand and to fraternally discuss and to patiently explain.
Only when we have achieved this, will we be able to participate in the day to day struggles of the working class in which we as fellow members will distinguish ourselves by being the most determined and combative fighters, constantly assisting to educate the fellow members of our class as well as ourselves, stressing not only the day to day importance of struggle but of the necessity for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism on a world wide scale.
Whilst we are in effect two distinctive parts of the working class, the revolutionary layer and the generalized body, we are nevertheless two parts of a whole. For we as revolutionaries have the sole interest of the working class at hand. We are not the so called revolutionaries of the ‘politicos’ who have the interest of other classes at hand! We do not seek power, we do not seek to align the classes, we do not seek bourgeois order. We seek the victory solely of the working class.
As an intrinsic part of the whole of the working class, we as revolutionaries cannot substitute ourselves for the mass of the working class, whether in the day to day struggles against the injustices of capitalism nor in the conquest of power by the working class. In that sense the generalization of the understanding and struggle of the entire working class towards communism is just as a necessary factor in such as the body of revolutionaries. Both are indispensable in the revolution.
For we cannot have illusions that just because at present we understand the process of the coming revolution in a deeper way than the bulk off our class that we can substitute ourselves from the necessary generalization of the understanding of struggle by the working class as a whole. Unlike the bourgeois revolution whereby a minority of that class could call upon and force the exploited classes to fight in their interest, we cannot; for we and our class exploit no-one. For as a ‘politico’ group substitutes itself for the mass of the working class in struggle, when the so called revolutionaries of the Stalinists and the so called Trotskyists speak as themselves as the ‘vanguard of the revolution’, what they are merely saying is that they are the vanguard of the bourgeoisie in battle against the idea of a world working class revolution and are seeking to rely upon us as an exploited class to achieve their power and the continued power of the bourgeoisie. For without the mass participation of the world working class in the revolution, there can be no working class revolution.
As the working class as a whole begin to understand their role and tasks and through generalized experience and understanding and begin to foment into a revolutionary homogeneity, the tasks of the party will almost be complete and thereto the party, like the state dissolves itself into the masses of the working class and the socialist humanity that has been created. As with old ideas, the revolutionary party becomes redundant.
THE SO-CALLED ‘REVOLUTIONARIES’ IN MINDANAO AND ‘BANGSAMORO’
Within the so called ‘revolutionary movement’ in Mindanao and ‘Bangsamoro’, three main positions exist, simply put, that of the Stalinist CPP, the “Leninist” PMP and the Trotskyists of the RPM (M) But each tendency of thought has its commonality in that they all argue for the creation of an independent state of ‘Bangsamoro’ and for the nature of such a state to be bourgeois. In effect they argue for the replacement of the Philippine capitalists with Moro capitalists; replacing the dictatorship of petty imperialist capital with that of the dictatorship of oppressed minority imperialist capital. They all similarly call for the maintenance of capitalism in the Philippines.
In effect, all the so called revolutionary tendencies with activities in ‘Bangsamoro’ proclaim in turn and by wrote the necessity of the successful ‘bourgeois revolution’. For these groups, this ‘bourgeois revolution’, of the elimination of the remnants of the old economic relations of feudalism and for the creation of capitalist economic relations; or just for the national liberation of oppressed minorities within the Philippines is a necessary task to be achieved as a first stage on the path to ‘socialism’. Even despite the feudal remnants in our region being just that – remnants!
As a consequence, the question of communism becomes a secondary thought, a Marxist principle to be ignored along with the interests of the working class.
It is well known that the Stalinists and the Leninists have long advocated the ‘rights of nations to self determination’ with the Stalinist concept of ‘socialism in one country arising from the intransigent and fatal reliance of the then leadership of the Russian Bolsheviks in 1917 to foster the development of capitalism and independence of nations in the old Czarist empire. Such a policy did by one move isolate the Russian revolution and handed the counter-revolution new nations from which to launch military attacks. This in the mistaken belief that such independence of nations would rally this or that nation to the banner of the Russian revolution. Of note, especially over Poland, the physical link between the revolution in Russia and the revolution and Germany and its revolution was broken. Thus further isolating the Bolshevik revolution.
Despite all off Lenin and indeed Trotsky’s understanding that the nature of the communist revolution is international or nothing, these Marxist giants erred in a manner to effectively derail the world revolution. It was not just the isolation of the Russian revolution per se, but the anti-Marxist nonsense in clinging to a policy that may have been progressive in the ascendancy of capitalism but as the Marxist giant Rosa Luxemburg and the other Left Communists of the day pointed out that in the period of the decadence of capitalism this demand was counter-revolutionary. That in 1916 onwards! To this day these coconut heads have failed to grasp the significance of their errors!
The Trotskyists as with the Stalinists and Leninists still cling to this outmoded demand of the independence of nations, including Bangsamoro. They advocate the development of the socialist revolution in stages, despite for the Trotskyists advocating permanent revolution and the law of combined and uneven development. For with the support of national liberation struggles it is certain that this is support for the ‘bourgeois revolution’ first and the communist revolution second. This echoes the old ideas of Lenin in advocating the same and of Stalin who developed the theory of socialism in one country.
Alongside this it is necessary to understand that the idea or the creation of a nation is a peculiarity solely of capitalism whereas socialism advocates the creation of a new world order.
The Stalinist CPP states - Ang Bayan – ‘On the nationality question and the right to self-determination’
http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/ab/text.pl?issue=199911-12;lang=eng;article=15
“ Should the concept that they are a separate people and that they should secede from the country still prevail upon the attainment of revolutionary victory, we should respect this for as long as they do not become instruments of imperialism or the restoration of semi colonial and semi feudal conditions.”
That as long as they remain ‘bourgeois’ then a separate state could secede!
The ‘Leninist’ PMP states, - Sonny Melencio – ‘The Moro Question’
http://www.dsp.org.au/links/node/115
“Whether we like it or not, there is a national question that involves the struggle of entire peoples (including their own rising bourgeoisie) [Our emphasis] against the Filipino chauvinist state - one is the struggle of the Moro people for a separate state, and the other is the struggle of the Cordillera people for genuine autonomy.”
The ‘Trotskyist’ RPM(M) states, - ‘Revolutionary Workers Party ( Mindanao) - Introduction’
http://www.grenzeloos.org/rpmm/
“The RPM-M supports the struggle of the Bangsamoro to build and freely manage their own territory thru the peace negotiation of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)…”
And what these gentlemen also fail to recognize is that in all likelihood if ever and independent Bangsamoro did arise is that it would be a capitalist nation and an Islamic nation.
Are the CPP, PMP, RPM(M) really convinced that an Islamic state, an MILF state of Bangsamoro, would not have to immediately launch a pogrom against the communists of Bangsamoro, organized labor, liberated women, homosexuals, Christians, libertarians and so forth? That any independent working class group, organization or struggle, even over wages and conditions would not be ruthlessly repressed? Would they not be the most ruthless of capitalists?
What is further clear from the position of these ‘revolutionary’ tendencies is that they advocate an alliance of classes to achieve their ‘democratic’ demands and with such, demand that the working class subordinate itself to the bourgeois in order to help achieve the latter’s power. For their ‘democratic’ demands are merely the undemocratic demand of the capitalists for their continued rule.
As opposed to advocating independent working class action for the overthrow of the bourgeois class internationally and the creation of world Communism, these so called revolutionaries advocate that the working class be used firstly as cannon fodder for the intrigues and games of the nascent bourgeoisie, nationally and regionally and to enshrine the latter’s continued privilege and then, as the lessons of history have taught us, they will allow the wholesale slaughter of the Filipino and ‘Bangsamoro’ working class which will occur if the continued rule of the Filipino bourgeois is allowed and even if self-determination by the nascent bourgeois class in ‘Bangsamoro’ is achieved.
These are the bloody lessons of all the failed revolutions, Russia, Germany, Spain, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Angola, Ethiopia, Laos… and countless others where so called revolutionaries have advocated stage-ism, nationalism, national liberation, and popular or united front alliances between our class and our enemies. These are the lessons on the creation of the some 150 new nations in the 20th Century.
IN CONCLUSION
Let us learn for the 21st century – this is the century that will, in future history, be termed as the century of the victory of the world proletariat…
Juan
