Hei Ran: New Trends in the Philippine Left-Wing Movement in the 21st Century
As an important political and social force in Philippine modern history, the core objectives of the Philippine Left are to oppose social inequality, promote land reform, contest imperialism, and strive for transformation through armed struggle or social movements. The Philippine Left movement has a long history, and leftist political parties remain active on the political stage today, possessing a degree of representativeness among Southeast Asian nations. At the end of the 19th century, the outbreak of anti-colonial struggles and the development of national liberation movements laid the foundation for the rise of the leftist movement in the country. In the early 1930s, the founding of the Communist Party of the Philippines (Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930, abbreviated as PKP-1930) raised the curtain on the Philippine leftist movement. In the mid-to-late 20th century, with the successive establishment of several leftist political parties, the country's leftist movement took on diversified characteristics. Since the 21st century, leftist parties have continued to wield a certain level of influence within the Philippine political ecosystem. Sorting through the evolutionary course of the Philippine leftist movement and researching the development trends and primary characteristics of the country’s major leftist parties helps us assess the prospects and trends of the Philippine Left, thereby deepening our analysis and reflection on Southeast Asian leftist politics and social movements.
I. The Developmental Course of the Philippine Leftist Movement
The Philippine leftist movement is the result of the combined effects of colonial history, class contradictions, and social currents of thought. Despite experiencing suppression and internal splits, leftist parties remain a force that cannot be ignored in the Philippine political ecosystem; their developmental history exhibits a general trend of advancing through twists and turns.
(1) The Rise and Early Development of the Philippine Leftist Movement
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Philippines was in a period of transition from Spanish colonial rule to American colonial rule. The United States took over the Philippines from Spain in 1898 through the Treaty of Paris and subsequently pacified local armed resistance in 1902, formally establishing colonial rule. During this period, the socioeconomic and political structures of the Philippines underwent violent shifts, and the primary social contradictions were manifested in the conflicts between colonial rule and national independence, between landlords and peasants, and between the laboring class and capitalists. Amidst the interlacing of the anti-colonial struggle and social reform movements, leftist thought gradually rose. In 1901, the politician Isabelo de los Reyes, returning from exile, brought foreign progressive works concerning class and revolution and the ideas of proletarian liberation to the Philippine people, such as Entre Campesinos (Among the Peasants) and Vida e Obras de Carlos Marx (The Life and Works of Karl Marx), providing new ideological weapons for the struggle against Spanish colonial rule and the national independence movement. In 1902, de los Reyes, along with Hermenegildo Cruz, formed the first modern labor union federation in the Philippines—the Democratic Labor Union (UOD)—calling on the national working class to initiate strikes to protest the oppressive labor policies of the bourgeois government and to fight for basic rights and welfare protections for workers. Under the influence of the Russian October Revolution, the class consciousness of the Philippine worker and peasant classes gradually strengthened, and they actively participated in social resistance. As Marxism further integrated with the movements of workers and peasants, labor leaders such as Crisanto Evangelista established the Workers' Party of the Philippines (POF) in 1924, laying the foundation for the rise of the country's leftist movement.
In the early 1930s, under the colonial oppression of US imperialism and the oppression of the Philippine comprador big bourgeoisie, the landlord class, and the bureaucratic class, and in response to the increasingly strong calls for national independence and social liberation, Evangelista and others established the Central Committee of the PKP in Manila in 1930, officially commencing the Philippine leftist movement. In 1931, the PKP held its First National Congress, where General Secretary Evangelista issued the "Message to the Working People of the Philippines" and proposed the party's minimum program: to overthrow the rule of imperialism and feudalism and establish an independent and democratic Philippines. The party also committed itself to integrating Marxist-Leninist theory with the concrete realities of Philippine society, raising the Philippine revolution to the level of a new-type national-democratic revolution in the era of imperialism. However, shortly after the First Congress of the PKP, the Manila Court of First Instance declared the PKP an illegal organization, forcing its activities underground. In 1937, as the forces of fascism and Japanese militarism rose, the Comintern adopted the strategy of the People's War [1], requiring Communist parties in all countries and all mobilizable forces to unite and form an anti-fascist united front. At the strong request of the Philippine people, the US-led Philippine Commonwealth government lifted the ban and restored the PKP’s legal status. During World War II, the PKP called for a struggle against imperialism, the exploitation and enslavement of colonies and semi-colonies, class oppression, national division, and all forms of chauvinism.
However, in 1948, the PKP was again rendered an illegal organization. Under the powerful suppression of US imperialism and the Philippine bourgeois government, the primary members of the Party's Central Committee were all arrested, and the PKP's armed forces—the HMB (Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan/People's Liberation Army)—suffered heavy casualties. By the mid-1950s, the PKP's armed uprising against the bourgeois government was declared a failure; the Party had to cease armed struggle and shift to peaceful activities to regroup, and the Philippine leftist movement entered a period of low ebb.
(2) Splits and Diversified Development of the Philippine Leftist Movement
In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos took office as President. Because he continued the pro-US policies of the previous administration, many leftist figures suffered persecution. During this period, the Philippine leftist movement exhibited diversified characteristics; in addition to the Communist Party, a group of organizations and groups advocating democratic socialism emerged.
On one hand, the PKP attempted to revitalize the leftist movement by strengthening party building. However, after the first Rectification Movement [2] in 1966, factional disputes within the PKP intensified. The "pro-China faction," represented by Jose Maria Sison, split from the party and led Maoist youth groups to hold a congress for the re-establishment of the party in 1968, forming the new Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). In the 1970s, the original PKP organization signed a "National Unity Agreement" with the Marcos government, agreeing to renounce armed struggle and support the government’s "New Society" program. Although this organization still exists today, its political influence is relatively limited. Conversely, the CPP, which split away later and insisted on Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought as its guide, used the slogan "Strike the local tyrants and distribute the land" [3] to mobilize peasants for a land revolution. This move not only fit the social reality of the Philippines’ majority rural population but also responded to the interests and demands of the Philippine working class and peasant masses. Consequently, the new organization grew rapidly in strength and became the most influential leftist party in the Philippines.
On the other hand, influenced by democratic socialist thought from Europe and Latin America, some Philippine intellectuals and political figures advocated for social reform through democratic means. In the 1960s, a group of organizations and groups advocating democratic socialism appeared within the Philippine Left. In 1973, the Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP) was formally established, proposing political slogans such as "Restore Democracy" and "Freedom and Human Rights." Its primary aim was to overthrow the Marcos dictatorship, promote land reform, and strive to restore political democracy and human rights in the Philippines, thereby upholding fairness and justice in Philippine society.
In 1986, the outbreak of the first People Power Revolution completely overthrew the Marcos regime. However, due to the increasing exposure of subjectivist and opportunist tendencies within the CPP, coupled with the prevalence of sectarianism and intensifying secessionist tendencies, the CPP and its mass organizations were gradually marginalized within Philippine party politics during this movement. Meanwhile, the PDSP, by actively promoting the democratic transition of the Philippines and participating in the reconstruction of the country’s democratic society, utilized the revolutionary opportunity and the wave of the movement to gradually transform from a revolutionary party into a parliamentary and governing party, even briefly becoming a partner in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's coalition government.
In the early 1990s, to purge the erroneous tendencies of subjectivism and sectarianism within the party, the CPP conducted the Second Great Rectification Movement. Initially, the party was divided into "Reaffirmists" and "Rejectionists" based on ideological differences. As factional strife escalated, the "Rejectionists" split into several more factions, such as the Revolutionary Workers' Party of the Philippines (RPM-P), which claimed to adhere to Marxism-Leninism while abandoning Mao Zedong Thought; the Workers' Party of the Philippines (PMP); and the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Philippines (MLP), which adhered to Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought while criticizing the CPP’s sectarianism. Some of these leftist parties later split into further political factions; some began to practice democratic socialism, while other organizations and groups continued to play a role in Philippine party politics as a moderate left. Overall, the Philippine leftist movement in the 20th century exhibited characteristics of diversified development.
II. New Developments in the Philippine Leftist Movement in the 21st Century
Since the 21st century, Philippine leftist parties have achieved new accomplishments in the process of theoretical innovation and practical exploration, injecting new vitality into the development of the country's leftist movement.
(1) Overview of Major Philippine Leftist Parties
Based on differences in guiding ideology and political stance, the major Philippine leftist parties can be divided into two main categories: Communist parties and Social Democratic parties. The primary representatives of the Communist parties are the CPP and the Rebolusyonaryong Partidong Manggagawa ng Mindanao (RPM-M). The CPP adheres to Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought, and its struggle and practice aim to create conditions for the Philippine socialist revolution and construction. The party's highest goal is to achieve national and social liberation, and ultimately to realize Communism. Meanwhile, the CPP proposes the political line of "People's War," advocating for the completion of the Philippine national-democratic revolution first through a protracted people's war, followed by the advancement of the proletarian socialist revolution. The RPM-M was established in 2001, resulting from a split within the CPP "Rejectionists." Ideologically, this party insists on Marxism-Leninism as its guide, opposes the CPP's "People's War" political line, and advocates for advancing national reform through open democratic struggle and anti-imperialist struggle, ultimately moving toward a higher stage of socialist revolution on a global scale.
The primary representatives of the Social Democratic parties are the PDSP and the Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM/Party of the Laboring Masses). These two parties believe in democratic socialism and view democratic elections as the legitimate means to achieve socialism. The PDSP's guiding ideology originates from the Philippine nationalist intellectual tradition and the theories of Western European social democratic parties. While identifying with the basic values of the Socialist International, the party also learns from the policy practices of various Western European social democratic parties and formulates policies in combination with the specific realities of the Philippines. For this reason, the PDSP describes itself as a "nationalist, democratic, socialist, and revolutionary" Philippine party, and takes the "realization of democratic socialism" as its ultimate goal. The PLM was established in 2009, with its members composed of "Rejectionists" from the CPP as well as labor, community, and progressive groups. The PLM describes itself as a democratic socialist party, emphasizing the importance of democratic politics, people's participation, and social justice. Although the party has not explicitly stated that it is guided by Marxism, it identifies with socialist principles to a certain extent.
(2) New Theoretical Explorations of the Philippine Leftist Movement
Since the 21st century, Philippine leftist parties have carried out theoretical innovation in combination with their own characteristics. They have not only profoundly criticized the flaws of the capitalist system but also proposed new socialist conceptions that fit the national conditions of the Philippines, advancing the country's leftist movement to a certain extent.
1. New Critiques of Capitalism
The outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis had a profound global impact, exposing the defects of the capitalist system. Taking this as an opportunity, the Philippine Left further deepened its critical understanding of capitalism. The CPP pointed out that as the crisis of the global capitalist system further intensified, the internal contradictions and conflicts of imperialism continued to deepen. Developed capitalist countries, led by the United States, wantonly sought hegemony across the world, triggering a new round of economic recession that rippled globally, bringing even more severe disasters to the people of the world. Currently, the global economy remains mired in a state of low growth, with many capitalist countries on the brink of recession. The post-pandemic economic "recovery" has failed to restore production levels to those seen before the COVID-19 pandemic; corporate closures and large-scale layoffs are widespread, and productive forces are suffering serious destruction and are in a state of retreat, while the socio-economic conditions of the working class and the laboring masses have further deteriorated. Meanwhile, capital oligarchs continue to accumulate wealth, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The continuous decline in the consumption capacity of the working class has caused consumer demand to lag behind the expansion of production, thereby triggering structural imbalances within the capitalist system. The Revolutionary Workers' Party of Mindanao (RPMP) believes that capitalism has now permeated every corner of social life in the Philippines, and the basic contradictions of capitalism are intensifying and spreading with unprecedented depth and breadth on a global scale. In their pursuit of profit, capitalists do not hesitate to sacrifice human well-being and disrupt social order. The Party of the Laboring Masses (PLM) emphasizes that while capitalism uses natural resources and wealth for expansion, it accumulates massive amounts of capital at the cost of planetary civilization and human life. Today, as state power in countries such as the United States, Brazil, and the Philippines remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie, it is urgent for leftist forces to adjust their strategies and continue the struggle against capitalism and the bourgeoisie.
- New Perspectives on Socialism Since entering the 21st century, under more complex domestic and international situations, leftist political parties in the Philippines have actively explored the road to socialism while drawing on new concepts of socialism from abroad, putting forward their own visions for socialism.
In 2014, the CPP provided a macro-level outlook on the future socialist road for the Philippines. First, under a socialist system, state power will serve the people, and the proletarian revolutionary party will play a leading role in properly coordinating contradictions among the people, enabling the broad masses to fully exercise their individual and collective rights. Second, the state must formulate a socialist constitution; the socialist cause must be advanced under the leadership of the proletarian party by extensively mobilizing and consolidating the strength of the masses, and through coordination and cooperation with other democratic parties and mass organizations. Third, the surplus value previously seized by capitalists will be transformed into social capital, used to promote development in fields such as social production, infrastructure construction, public services, scientific research, cultural undertakings, national defense, and environmental governance. Finally, if socialism is realized in the Philippines, the country will implement public ownership in strategic industries, key resources, major transportation, and communication facilities, and promote national economic recovery and sustainable development through land reform and other bourgeois-democratic reforms.
In 2020, Sonny Melencio, Chairperson of the PLM, pointed out in a speech titled "Capitalist Pandemic and Socialist Solutions" that a socialist society is one that focuses on solidarity and mutual assistance. Traditionally, the Philippines refers to the spirit of collaboration or community solidarity as "Bayanihan" [4], emphasizing mutual aid and unity between people, which was a characteristic of interpersonal relations during the tribal period of Philippine society. In view of this, the PLM believes that when responding to major crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a society that focuses on solidarity and cooperation will neither take market mechanisms and the supremacy of profit as its core principles, nor will it be built upon mutual competition; rather, it will take solidarity and cooperation as its fundamental principles. Based on this concept, the party advocates for integrating the spirit of collaboration into the vision of socialism.
Marx once pointed out: "Capitalist production, by collecting the population in great centres, and causing an ever-increasing preponderance of town population... on the one hand concentrates the historical motive power of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e. it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil." Based on a deep reflection on the relationship between man and nature, some leftist parties in the Philippines have stated that as the crisis of the capitalist system continues to deepen, socialist alternatives can only create conditions for the survival and development of future generations if they are built on an ecological foundation, repairing the ecology and protecting the environment during the production process aimed at meeting human needs.
(III) New Progress in the Practice of the Philippine Leftist Movement Since the 21st century, the Philippine leftist movement has made new progress in its process of practical exploration. Leftist political parties have committed themselves to strengthening party building and inter-party cooperation to lay a more solid foundation for promoting social transformation.
First, new measures in party building. Regarding the issues of party development and construction, the CPP held its Second National Congress in 2016, reaffirming the fundamental nature and supreme goal of the Party, emphasizing that the Party will long persist in taking Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its guide for action and applying it to the concrete practice of the Philippine revolution. The Second Congress profoundly summarized the experiences and lessons since the founding of the CPP, refined the Program for a People's Democratic Revolution, and reaffirmed the significance of the socialist revolution. Additionally, since the 21st century, the CPP has repeatedly emphasized strengthening party building ideologically, politically, and organizationally to further promote the development of the Philippine communist movement. The RPMP pointed out that establishing a revolutionary political party is not only a challenge for Marxists but also the central task for contemporary revolutionaries. Therefore, party building must focus on the nature of global capitalism and its specific impacts in the economic, political, and ecological fields, formulating and implementing corresponding strategies to effectively promote the democratic process. Norberto Gonzales, Chairperson of the PDSP, emphasized at the "49th Anniversary Meeting of the Party's Founding" that the party needs to continuously strengthen its political and organizational construction and actively discuss social development issues with like-minded parties and organizations. At the same time, the party needs to cultivate a new generation of leadership to continue the struggle for inheriting and carrying forward electoral politics and achieving the goals of democratic socialism. In August 2020, Melencio, Chairperson of the PLM, pointed out in a keynote speech titled "On the Current Political Situation: A Socialist Analysis" that as a revolutionary party, it must strengthen its ability to formulate strategies to effectively promote the development of class struggle. Therefore, only by continuously improving the revolutionary consciousness of the working class and the member masses, and enabling them to deeply understand the necessity of overthrowing capitalism, building socialism, and establishing a working-class government, can the vitality of the Party be effectively guaranteed.
Second, new progress in inter-party exchanges. Since the 21st century, the Philippine leftist movement has also achieved some new breakthroughs in inter-party cooperation. First, it has strengthened alliances with domestic political parties and organizations on the electoral front. In the elections for the Philippine House of Representatives held in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010, the PDSP established an alliance with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and participated in the elections as part of the "majority" led by the Arroyo coalition. Second, it has broadened exchanges between leftist parties. Since the 21st century, the CPP has actively participated in and organized international anti-imperialist democratic struggles and carried out political cooperation by establishing extensive inter-party relations with other leftist parties, such as the Communist Party of Spain (Marxist–Leninist), the Communist Party of Cuba, and the Communist Party of India (Maoist), striving to win rights and well-being for the oppressed people in the Philippines and other countries. Finally, it has deepened exchanges and contacts with other international organizations. In December 2022, the International Communist League (ICL) was formally established, and the CPP extended revolutionary greetings to 15 communist parties and organizations from 14 countries; after the death of the CPP founder Sison [5], the ICL and many leftist parties worldwide published messages of condolence, giving full recognition to Sison's revolutionary cause and his contributions. As the conflict in Northern Myanmar continues to heat up and the Russia-Ukraine conflict becomes mired in a war of attrition, the RPMP issued an appeal for international solidarity to trade union organizations in Myanmar and Ukraine, calling on global workers and oppressed people to resolve conflicts through democratic and diplomatic means. Furthermore, in response to the military attacks launched by the Turkish and Iranian governments against the Kurds, the PLM, in conjunction with non-governmental organizations such as the Socialist Alliance of Australia (SAA) and the Confederation of Indonesian People's Movement (KPRI), issued a statement calling for an end to the war through peaceful means.
III. New Characteristics of the 21st Century Philippine Leftist Movement Compared with the 20th century, the Philippine leftist movement in the 21st century has made new progress in theoretical innovation and practical exploration, while simultaneously presenting new characteristics such as the fragmentation of leftist politics, the flexibilization of struggle strategies, and the diversification of strategic goals.
(I) Fragmentation of Leftist Politics: Dual Factors Leading to the Difficulty of Integrating Leftist Forces After the great split of the Philippine Left in the mid-to-late 20th century, while the country's leftist movement developed in a diversified direction, it did not show a clear trend of fragmentation. Since entering the 21st century, differences in ideology and strategic lines among Philippine leftist parties and organizations have continued to expand; coupled with the dominant position of political family forces in the Philippine political ecosystem, leftist politics and the party system have gradually shown a clear trend toward fragmentation.
On the one hand, the division and opposition of leftist forces have intensified the fragmentation of the leftist movement. In the 20th century, because the disagreement between the "Reaffirmists" and "Rejectionists" [6] within the CPP could never be eliminated, the party eventually moved toward a split. Thereafter, the CPP, relying on the threat of force from its armed wing—the New People's Army (NPA)—instilled sectarian ideas in "Rejectionists" and young cadres, further intensifying ideological opposition within the party, making the integration of the two factions exceptionally difficult. As the "Rejectionists" successively split into multiple forces and became independent political forces in the Philippine political ecosystem, Philippine leftist politics in the 21st century gradually took on a fragmented development trend. To compete for leftist discourse power, several factions of the "Rejectionists" attempted to integrate leftist forces in 2005, establishing a pan-left alliance—Laban ng Masa (Struggle of the Masses)—including the Philippine Progressive Party (Sanlakas), the Workers' Party of the Philippines (PMP), and the Citizens' Action Party (Akbayan). However, because the various parties could not reach an agreement on issues such as ideology, electoral strategy, and the distribution of interests, the alliance failed to fully exert an integration effect in its actual operation; when facing practical issues such as the Moro struggle for national self-determination, soldier mutinies, and the grassroots construction of the leftist alliance, internal differences of opinion were difficult to bridge. Consequently, with the CPP being marginalized and some opposition parties in the alliance parting ways, leftist parties and organizations have remained unable to form a united and unified camp.
On the other hand, political family forces have seriously hindered the integration of leftist forces. There are more than 170 powerful political families in the Philippines, which have operated in their respective territories for generations, controlling more than 70 out of the 81 provinces nationwide and two-thirds of the seats in Congress. Looking at the general elections since the process of democratization in the Philippines, more than 60% of the district representatives in the House of Representatives have consistently come from political families. This indicates that the results of "democratic elections" in the Philippines have always been determined by political families, and family forces have controlled the country's political power structure. In this context, broken leftist parties and organizations usually choose to join the centrists or unite with other political forces to participate in elections. This not only intensifies contradictions and opposition among the Left but also further increases the difficulty of integrating leftist forces.
(II) Flexibilization of Struggle Strategies: The Shift from "Single Strategy" to "Dual Strategy" In the 20th century, the Philippine Left focused on armed struggle as an important way to overthrow the bourgeois government and realize socialism. Especially after Sison and others established the new CPP, the emphasis the Party placed on armed struggle further increased, even elevating it to a strategic core position. After the great split of the Left, various leftist parties realized that the struggle against the bourgeoisie would be a long and difficult process. Since the 21st century, facing profound changes in the domestic and international situation, Philippine leftist parties have begun to explore socialist roads suited to their national conditions, flexibly adjusting struggle strategies and methods, and achieving a "dual-track parallel" of armed struggle and legal political participation.
First, although the CPP [7] claims to persist in long-term armed struggle, it has also expressed an open attitude toward seeking opportunities to restart "peace negotiations" with the government. Under the logic of "fighting while talking," the Rodrigo Duterte government held four rounds of peace talks with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), the CPP's united front organization. On the premise of maintaining a basic ceasefire, the two sides reached a series of agreements, such as reaffirming the Hague Joint Declaration, reconstituting the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG), and drafting the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER). These peace talks reflect the CPP’s ability to adapt to changes of the times and meet the diverse needs of the masses. They indicate that the Party, while maintaining established socialist achievements, has begun to explore a socialist path that meets contemporary requirements and the people's demands, providing new ideas and methods for the in-depth development of the Philippine left-wing movement and comprehensive social progress. Second, while not renouncing armed struggle, the Revolutionary Workers' Party of Mindanao (RPM-M) conducted three rounds of peace talks with the Arroyo government, during which the two sides signed documents such as the Rules for Local Consultations, the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities, and the Joint Resolution to Further Advance the Peace Process. Thus, it is evident that in the 21st century, while adhering to armed struggle, the RPM-M has also attempted to sign peace agreements with the government through the relatively "moderate" strategy of peace talks. This move is conducive to maintaining regional security and stability, creating conditions for the development and reconstruction of local communities. The adjustment of struggle strategies not only reflects the theoretical and practical flexibility and pragmatism of the RPM-M but also demonstrates the Party's concern for the people's well-being and livelihoods. Finally, although the Social Democratic Party of the Philippines (PDSP) adheres to a "realpolitik" orientation and pursues a socialism that serves electoral politics, each party has made corresponding flexible adjustments to their struggle strategies based on practical needs. Taking the PDSP as an example, the party was initially active in Philippine politics by running in joint elections with bourgeois governments. However, since entering the 21st century, the PDSP has strived to unite with a wide range of like-minded groups, organizations, and patriotic masses to jointly formulate strategies and policies to promote the country's economic, political, and cultural development, pushing the Philippine state and society toward democracy and equity. This approach preserves the PDSP’s reformist concepts and satisfies the interests of its members while catering to the practical needs of the local populace, helping to win broader voter support.
(3) Diversification of Strategic Goals: Developing from Political Movements Toward Broader Social Movements
After the Cold War, the Philippine Left gradually grew into a political force that could not be ignored. Against this backdrop, the Philippine left-wing movement in the 20th century focused on class struggle and land reform. Entering the 21st century, as new social contradictions have become increasingly prominent, the movement has trended toward developing into a broader social movement. After the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, the social breadth of the Philippine left-wing movement became even more apparent, successively setting labor rights, job security, narrowing the wealth gap, achieving gender equality, protecting the ecological environment, guaranteeing medical and health services, and strengthening infrastructure construction as the primary goals of the movement.
The CPP emphasizes uniting all progressive forces in the New Era, expanding the Party's mass base through the implementation of land reform and the establishment of youth mass organizations. It also proposes the establishment of a broader mass alliance to better carry out large-scale mass movements in both rural and urban areas, thereby achieving phased goals such as eliminating usury, reducing land rents, increasing workers' wages, and raising income from side occupations. The RPM-M calls for cultivating more proletarian intellectuals with class consciousness to advance social movements for women's liberation, ecological protection, and the protection of children's rights as supplementary struggles for the socialist movement. In addition, the party supports and extensively mobilizes workers, peasants, and grassroots masses to develop self-help organizations such as cooperatives, thereby jointly promoting community building and development. This indicates that the 21st-century Philippine left-wing movement not only aims to improve the material living conditions of the worker and peasant masses but is also committed to enhancing people's identification with and support for socialist concepts on a spiritual level, providing strong support for forging a broad social consensus, promoting Philippine social progress, and achieving the well-rounded development of the people.
The Party of the Laboring Masses (PLM) primarily focuses on issues such as labor rights, gender equality, and environmental protection, working to build left-wing alliances among left-wing political parties, labor organizations, and progressive groups to serve the working people, environmentalists, women, community residents, and other marginalized groups. Since the 21st century, the party has extensively carried out propaganda and education activities to help the public enhance their democratic consciousness, while utilizing modern technology and social media to build propaganda networks among workers and youth. Furthermore, the PLM strives to expand its influence by uniting split left-wing factions as much as possible and strengthening cooperation with regional and international progressive organizations, while aiming to play a role at the legislative and decision-making levels to better promote national development and social change.
IV. Prospects for the Philippine Left-Wing Movement in the 21st Century
Looking forward, how the Philippine left-wing movement develops will largely depend on whether the country's left-wing parties can demonstrate stronger adaptability and creativity when facing challenges. Because the ideologies and political positions of various parties are not identical, the political influence of left-wing forces as a whole remains limited, and the developmental trend of the Philippine left-wing movement is not optimistic.
(1) The Development of Communist Parties Faces Challenges Influenced by Various Factors
Since their founding, the communist parties of the Philippines have been committed to safeguarding the fundamental interests of the working people and the worker-peasant masses, taking the realization of communism as their political goal. However, influenced by subjective factors and external forces, Philippine communist parties face considerable challenges in exploring a socialist developmental path with Philippine characteristics.
First, the development of the CPP faces internal pressures and external challenges. By the end of 2021, the CPP had approximately 150,000 members and a mass base of millions, a new breakthrough compared to the 100,000 members in 2019. However, in its long-term confrontation with the Philippine government, the CPP and the New People's Army (NPA) have repeatedly been designated as illegal organizations, needing to simultaneously face immense pressure from the domestic government and external powers. Influenced by subjectivism, certain erroneous tendencies have successively been exposed within the CPP. For example, when establishing struggle policies, the Party’s high-level leadership has relied too heavily on abstract theoretical frameworks and neglected in-depth analysis of domestic political, economic, and social dynamics, leading to decision-making that deviates from reality. Furthermore, internal splits caused by sectarianism have weakened the cohesion and combat effectiveness of the Party organization. Some leaders have adopted methods of excluding dissent when facing different voices within the Party, restricting intra-Party democracy. This has resulted in a lag in theoretical innovation and strategic adjustment, thereby weakening the Party's ability to respond to complex situations. These erroneous tendencies have, to a certain extent, weakened the CPP’s leadership role in promoting social change and posed obstacles to its long-term stability and development. Today, with the successive passing of the Party’s founder Sison, the core leader Benito Tiamzon, and Secretary-General Wilma Tiamzon, a significant vacuum has appeared in the CPP leadership. If the CPP cannot promptly formulate a new development strategy, the situation of internal strife and external threats—under the multi-layered external challenges of suppression by the bourgeois government, interference from the United States and other external forces, and a lack of international support—will not only weaken the CPP’s political influence and social mobilization capacity but also seriously constrain the future development of the Philippine left-wing movement.
Second, the development of the RPM-M is influenced by regional factors, which to some extent hinders the development of the Philippine left-wing movement and the formation of a left-wing alliance. The RPM-M, which split from the CPP, is rooted in the rural proletariat and peasantry and operates mainly in the rural areas of the southern Philippines. It must coordinate land conflicts between the Lumad people [8] and the Moro people [9] on Mindanao and consolidate the achievements of the struggle for national self-determination by ethnic minorities such as the Moros, while always remaining prepared to lead armed forces in conflicts with the government. Although the party actively contacts revolutionary parties and organizations at home and abroad and is committed to building a broader united front to launch a socialist revolution in the Philippines, the increasingly serious trend of fragmentation among left-wing organizations and groups not only hinders the formation of a left-wing alliance but also weakens the overall strength of the RPM-M and other Philippine left-wing parties.
(2) The Development of Social Democratic Parties Is Fraught with Difficulties
In the process of promoting the Philippine left-wing movement, the PDSP hopes to combine Philippine historical traditions with contemporary realities, seeking a middle path of promoting democracy between socialism and capitalism. However, its development is fraught with difficulties due to various constraints.
First, the PDSP lacks internal cohesion and faces a series of strategic dilemmas. Norberto Gonzales, the chairman of the PDSP, once publicly stated that during the period of opposition to the Marcos dictatorship, the PDSP strictly carried out member education, emphasizing ideology and guiding thought. After the process of democratization began, the party was embroiled in constant debate over whether to "remain a vanguard party or transform into a mass/electoral party." After the party's transformation, many cadres applied to leave the party. This indicates that the PDSP failed to effectively adjust its internal structure and strategic direction, leading to ideological differences, organizational transformation difficulties, and the loss of cadres. In the future, under the dual pressures of economic globalization and capital expansion, the Philippines faces practical dilemmas such as a widening wealth gap, social injustice, and environmental degradation. As a party committed to achieving democratic socialism, whether the PDSP can propose feasible solutions adapted to the contemporary economic and political environment and gain broad social support remains an urgent problem to be solved. Furthermore, in an increasingly complex political environment, how to secure a place in parliamentary elections and the democratization process, and subsequently formulate practical strategies to promote social change, is also a major challenge facing the party.
Second, the PLM will continue to promote the development of the Philippine left-wing movement as a representative of emerging left-wing forces, but it faces numerous difficulties. In recent years, the PLM has focused on uniting progressive left-wing forces to explore socialist alternatives that fit the Philippine national conditions, actively participating in general elections alongside other left-wing parties and organizations to promote the left-wing movement. However, as an emerging left-wing party, the PLM has failed to propose feasible action plans and programs on how to empower the masses and lead them to create a more just and equitable social system. The party’s constitution and program need to be refined through constant adaptation to the Philippine political ecosystem. Furthermore, data from the 2022 general election shows that support for the Philippine Left remains dismal. Therefore, for the PLM, which uses electoral politics as its main form of struggle, achieving democratic socialism through the promotion of socio-economic reforms will remain a long and difficult process.
Since its rise, the Philippine left-wing movement has undergone a historical process of early development, splitting, and diversified development, advancing through twists and turns amidst difficult exploration. Philippine left-wing parties are rooted in their social environments and, under the influence of their respective theoretical propositions, have gradually formed a trend of diversified development. However, limited by differences in ideology and political position, the various left-wing parties in the Philippines have consistently been unable to form a sincerely united camp, making it difficult to shake the status of family dynasties in Philippine party politics. Only by putting left-wing unity on the agenda as soon as possible can an important step be taken toward the transition to socialism. As the Philippine socialist Herbert Docena stated, it is only by "building a broad, united, and democratic mass movement" that one can "overthrow autocracy and confront other elites eager to regain power." Considering the general trend of Philippine left-wing parties constantly adjusting and accumulating strength in the 21st century, the left-wing movement may encounter new opportunities as it advances. Looking ahead, what kind of theoretical innovation and practical exploration Philippine left-wing parties will undertake, whether the country's left-wing movement can demonstrate stronger adaptability and creativity in the face of challenges, and whether its development can push the Philippines toward a more equitable, democratic, and sustainable path of development are subjects that require further research and observation.
(Author's Affiliation: Institute of Political Science, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Beijing Institute of Governance, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Source: World Socialism Studies, No. 2, 2025 Web Editor: Zhang Jian