pero anung ginagawa nyo!.. lalo lang kayong nagpapabigat sa pasanin ng uring manggagawa. nais ko lang ipaalala sa inyo na ang ultimate arbiter is the practice..
so, ipakita nyo muna sa praktika na tama kayo bago nyo ipagmayabang.. wag pa as if malakas pa kayo dahil sa totoo lang aminin nyo man o hindi humihina na kayo.
mga UNGAS!….

isa pa, ang tunay na proletaryado hindi nakikipag collaborate kay Manny Villar or sinumang naghaharing uri.

saka pahabol pa. magaling kayong mag interpret ng data nyo, very dialectic and materialistic.pero ang di ko maintindihan, bat nakalutang sa hangin?..

the blueprint or framework of proletarian revolutionary struggle in the philippines should not be depending on foreign models for it to follow. a concrete analysis of philippine history, social classes and political economy should be undertaken along scientifically universal principles of revolutionary socialism, marxism-leninism not necessarily following revolutionary models of other proletarian and national liberation parties and groups. revo strategy and tactics, should not be confined to a single strategy.

in the light of the worsening imperialist globalization by monopoly capitalists, the philippine proletarian movement should regroup, reassess and rethink its analyses, strategies and tactics rather than to toss ephitets to one another. kung ganun pa rin tayo magpahanggang ngayon, i say wala tayong patutunguhan.

positive comments and violent reactions, name calling and labelling are welcome. email me if you like, hahahaha!

Nakakagulat ang sinasabi nong isa na may continuity ang Leninism sa Maoism. Kung meron mang ganon, it must have been through Stalin. Lenin never used the nation as the parameter by which to pursue the revolution of the working class. Lenin had always been consistent on the internationalist framework of the proletarian revolution. Stalin distorted all these when he began to re-shape the whole framework and announced that Socialism in One Country was indeed possible.

Kaya nga noon mahalaga ang Internationale e.. Mula kina Marx hanggang sa second international at maging sa third internationale, lagi nitong ipinapakita ang pandaigdigang saklaw ng rebolusyon kung kaya’t nasa antas internasyonal ang palitan ng mga rebolusyonaryo. Noong sinira ito ni stalin sa anyo ng Socialism in One Country, biglang naging proletarian ang mga national liberation struggles when in fact these struggles are nothing but the pursuit of national interests that favor the bourgeoisie.

Alam kaya ng mga bloggers ng CPP na ang NDR ay may katangiang burges… at ang katangiang ito ay hindi simpleng katangian kundi isang balangkas ng pagsusulong ng kilusan — kaya dahil nasa balangkas ng defense of the national interest and national sovereignty and whatever national aspirations blah blah blah, the interest of the working class becomes subordinated to the interests of the different sectors.

In short, the proletarian element of the revolution is dissolved in favor of the broader interests of the democratic struggle. This explains why CPP and other leftist groups often play politics with other political groups coming from the elite opposition. At any given moment, their positions and propaganda line can be identical. This is precisely because the politics that define the maoist revolution is primarily the politics of the bourgeoisie and not the politics of the proletariat.

I may not agree with you internationalists on your methods and everything.. I may not even agree with your positions and framework.. but i admire the way you handle the exchanges here.

this might be my last entry unless i see some interesting exchanges in the future. Meanwhile, continue your crusade. The maoists are a dangerous bunch of adventurists who have never learned the lessons of history. They have never learned because they refuse to learn.

On my part, I will continue to remember how I lost my brother and my friends in the “revolutionary” movement. They were executed for no reason at all except that they were accused of being DPAs.. only to be found innocent 10 years after.

Everytime na naririnig ko ang mga maoista na nagsasalita ng napaka violent, naaalala ko ang mga namatay sa loob ng kilusan dahil pinatay sila mismo ng kilusan. Kaya sa tingin ko, ang kilusang ito kailan man ay walang karapatang magsalita hinggil sa karapatang pantao at kung ano pa. Ang kilusang maoista ng CPP ay kasing bankcrupt ng sinumang umuupong gobyerno ng naghaharing uri.

Ang kilusang maoista kelan man ay hindi rin mananalo. Nagkalat ang DPA sa hanay nila hanggang ngayon. Di mabilang sa daliri ang mga DPA na nakadeploy sa kahit saang prenteng gerilya nila. Akala lang nila wala.

again, thank you for the space and time. I will just be observing.

maraming salamat kasama at sana ay patuloy kang magkomento….

I can only conclude, initially, that Maoists tend to take violence more of an attitude rather an a description of a form of struggle.

Lumalabas na masyadong romanticized ng mga Maoists ang masa at sinasabing sa rebolusyon, ang masa ang mapapagpasya. I beg to disagree if we are to look into the practices of revolutionary organizations and parties in the Philippines. I have spent quite a time with the pulang mandirigma and party branches in the countryside. They are the decisive elements and not the masses. Ang masa ay simpleng binababaan na lang mga panawagan, kampanyang masa, at kung anu-ano pang mga plano na ginagawa ng mga kagawad ng mga namumunong mga komite.

In the history of the CPP in the Philippines, I have yet to see real struggles initiated and pursued by the masses comparative to the working class strikes in 1905 in Russia. Dito lahat ng galaw ng masa ay kapasyahan ng Partido. Noon, sa 1905, sina Lenin mismo ay namangha sa ispontanyong pagkilos at pag-galaw ng manggagawa, maging ang paglitaw ng konsepto ng Sobyet bilang organo ng pampulitikang pagkaka-orgaisa ng masa.

I dare the maoists to look into their practices of leading and manipulating the masses. Mula Appari hanggang Zamboanga City.. Mula red area hanggang white area,,, malinaw na partido ang laging nagtatakda at partido ang laging tama.

Now here you are, internationalists at maoists debating on documents, framework and platform, interpretation of history,,, and so on and so forth. Para kayong Iglesia ni Kristo at Ang Dating Daan.

Meanwhile, nadudurog ang uring manggagawa dahil tumitindi ang krisis ng kapital.

By the way, it might be good to point out that the maoists have a very serious handicap in understanding capitalism and imperialism for that matter. They see imperialism the way they would describe an empire… This failure pushes them to believe that there is revolutionary value in the defense of national interest and national sovereignty. The truth is that every effort at defending the nation-state is an effort to defend the territory of the bourgeoisie–the nation being the ultimate creation and the ultimate domain of the bourgeios class.

hay naku..

by the way, why can’t the maoist be more professional in engaging a serious debate. Bakit may pa landmine landmine at katay katay pa.

Isa pa pala. ehehe. syensa na pero medyo ganado ako kaya ito pa. last na lang…

recent NPA operations point out to no less than an act of military adventurism. Ano na nangyari sa great rectification movement? haha haha. Tama nga pala ang mga sinasabi noong 1991 na ang militarist tendencies ay hindi bitbit ng mga pasimuno ng insureksyonismo at militarismo sa kilusan kundi ito ay batayang elemento ng PPW. Nagiging militarista ang isang kilusan dahil ang pananaw nito sa rebolusyon ay digmaan.

Sige nga.. itong mga magagaling na mga maoista, sabihin niyo nga kung hindi militarist adventure ang karamihan sa mga TOs ninyo ngayon? Sige nga.. at nang maliwanagan kami.