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, and resist imperialism, while striving for transformation through armed struggle or social movements. The Philippine Left movement has a long history, and Left-wing political parties remain active on the political stage to this day, possessing a certain degree of representativeness among Southeast Asian nations. At the end of the 19th century, the outbreak of the Philippine anti-colonial struggle and the development of the national liberation movement laid the foundation for the rise of the country's Left-wing movement. In the early 1930s, the establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines (Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930, abbreviated as PKP-1930) raised the curtain on the Philippine Leftist movement. During the mid-to-late 20th century, with the successive establishment of multiple Left-wing parties, the movement exhibited diverse characteristics. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Left-wing parties have maintained a degree of influence within the Philippine political ecosystem. Tracing the evolution of the Philippine Left-wing movement and researching the development trends and primary characteristics of the country's major Left-wing parties helps us assess the prospects and trends of the movement, thereby deepening our analysis and reflection on Southeast Asian Leftist politics and social movements.
I. The Evolutionary Process of the Philippine Left-wing Movement
The Philippine Left-wing movement is the result of the combined effects of colonial history, class contradictions, and social ideological trends. Despite undergoing suppression and internal splits, Left-wing parties remain a force that cannot be overlooked in the Philippine political ecosystem, and their developmental trajectory has exhibited an overall trend of advancing through twists and turns.
(1) The Rise and Early Development of the Philippine Left-wing Movement
In the early 20th century, the Philippines was in a transition period 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 socio-economic and political structures of the Philippines underwent drastic changes. The primary social contradictions were manifested in the conflicts between colonial rule and national independence, landlords and peasants, and the laboring class and capitalists. Amidst the intertwining of the Philippine anti-colonial struggle and social reform movements, Leftist ideological trends gradually emerged. In 1901, the politician Isabelo de los Reyes, returning from exile, brought progressive foreign works regarding class, revolution, and 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) [1]. These provided new ideological weapons for the struggle against Spanish colonial rule and the national independence movement. In 1902, de los Reyes and Hermenegildo Cruz organized the first modern labor federation in the Philippines—the Democratic Labor Union (UOD)—calling on the national working class to launch strikes against the oppressive labor policies of the bourgeois government and to fight for basic rights and welfare protections [2]. Under the influence of the Russian October Revolution, the class consciousness of Philippine workers and peasants gradually strengthened, leading to active participation in social resistance. As Marxism further integrated with the workers' and peasants' movements, 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 Left-wing movement.
In the early 1930s, under the colonial oppression of US imperialism and the suppression by the Philippine comprador-grand 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, formally launching the Philippine Left-wing movement [3]. In 1931, the PKP held its First National Congress, where General Secretary Evangelista issued the "Message to the Philippine Toiling People" and proposed the party's minimum program: to overthrow the rule of imperialism and feudalism and establish an independent, democratic Philippines [4]. The party also dedicated itself to integrating Marxist-Leninist theory with the concrete realities of Philippine society, elevating the Philippine revolution to the level of a new-type national-democratic revolution in the era of imperialism [5]. 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, with the rise of fascism and Japanese militarism, the Communist International (Comintern) adopted the strategy of the People's War, requesting 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 Commonwealth Government of the Philippines 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 [6].
However, in 1948, the PKP was again relegated to an illegal organization. Under the strong suppression of US imperialism and the Philippine bourgeois government, the main members of the party’s Central Committee were all arrested, and the PKP’s armed force—the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB; People's Liberation Army)—suffered heavy casualties [7]. In the mid-1950s, the PKP's armed uprising against the bourgeois government was declared a failure; the party was forced to cease armed struggle and shift to peaceful activities to regroup, and the Philippine Left-wing movement entered a period of low ebb.
(2) Splits and Diversified Development of the Philippine Left-wing Movement
In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos assumed the presidency. Because he continued the pro-American policies of the previous administration, many Leftists suffered persecution. During this period, the Philippine Left-wing 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 Left-wing movement by strengthening party building. However, after the first Great Rectification Movement in 1966 [8], internal factional strife within the PKP grew increasingly fierce. The "pro-China faction," represented by Jose Maria Sison, split from the party and led Maoist youth groups to hold a party re-establishment congress in 1968, organizing the new Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) [9]. 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 [10]. Although this organization still exists today, its political influence is relatively limited. Conversely, the CPP, which split off later and insisted on being guided by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, used the slogan "strike the local tyrants and distribute the land" [11] to mobilize peasants for land revolution. This move not only fit the social reality of the Philippines' rural majority but also responded to the interests of the Philippine working class and peasant masses. Consequently, the new organization's strength grew rapidly, becoming the most influential Left-wing party in the Philippines.
On the other hand, influenced by democratic socialist trends in Europe and Latin America, some Philippine intellectuals and political figures advocated for social reform through democratic means. In the 1960s, a number of organizations and groups advocating democratic socialism emerged within the Philippine Left. In 1973, the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party (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 maintaining fairness and justice in Philippine society.
In 1986, the outbreak of the first People Power Revolution completely overthrew the Marcos regime. However, because tendencies of subjectivism and opportunism were increasingly exposed within the CPP—compounded by the prevalence of sectarianism and growing secessionist tendencies—the CPP and its mass organizations were gradually marginalized from Philippine party politics during this movement [12]. Meanwhile, the PDSP, by actively promoting the Philippine democratic transition and participating in the reconstruction of the country's democratic society, leveraged revolutionary opportunities and movement waves to gradually transform from a revolutionary party into a parliamentary and governing party, even becoming a governing partner in the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo coalition government for a time.
In the early 1990s, to purge erroneous tendencies such as subjectivism and sectarianism within the party, the CPP conducted the second Great Rectification Movement. Initially, the party was divided into the "Reaffirmists" [13] and the "Rejectionists" [14] due to ideological differences. As the factional struggle escalated, the "Rejectionists" further split into multiple factions, such as the Revolutionary Workers' Party of the Philippines (RPM-P) and the Workers' Party of the Philippines (PMP), which supposedly adhered to Marxism-Leninism but abandoned Mao Zedong Thought; and the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Philippines (MLP), which adhered to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought while criticizing the CPP's sectarianism. Some of these Left-wing parties later split into further political factions, with some beginning to practice democratic socialism, while other organizations and groups continued to play a role in Philippine party politics as the moderate Left. Overall, the Philippine Left-wing movement in the 20th century exhibited characteristics of diversified development.
II. New Developments of the Philippine Left-wing Movement in the 21st Century
Since the beginning of the 21st century, Philippine Left-wing parties have achieved new accomplishments in the process of theoretical innovation and practical exploration, injecting new vitality into the development of the country's Left-wing movement.
(1) Overview of Major Philippine Left-wing Parties
Based on differences in guiding ideologies and political stances, the major Philippine Left-wing 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 Partido ng Manggagawa – Mindanao (RPM-M; Revolutionary Workers' Party of Mindanao). The CPP adheres to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and its struggle and practice aim to create conditions for the Philippine socialist revolution and construction. The party's ultimate goal is to achieve national and social liberation, and finally realize communism [15]. Simultaneously, 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, and then advancing to the proletarian socialist revolution [16]. The RPM-M was established in 2001, splitting from the "Rejectionists" of the CPP. Ideologically, the party insists on Marxism-Leninism as its guide but opposes the CPP's "People's War" political line, advocating instead for national reform through open democratic struggle and anti-imperialist struggle, ultimately moving toward a higher stage of socialist revolution on a global scale [17].
The primary representatives of the Social Democratic parties are the PDSP and the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (PLM; Party of the Laboring Masses). Both parties believe in democratic socialism and view democratic elections as the legitimate means to achieve socialism. The PDSP's guiding ideology is derived from the tradition of Philippine nationalist thought and the theories of West European social democratic parties. While identifying with the basic values of the Socialist International, the party also draws on the policy practices of various West European social democratic parties and formulates policies in combination with the specific realities of the Philippines. Therefore, the PDSP describes itself as a "nationalist, democratic, socialist, and revolutionary" Philippine party, taking "the realization of democratic socialism" as the party's ultimate goal. The PLM was established in 2009, its membership 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. While 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 Left-wing Movement
Since the 21st century, Philippine Left-wing parties have engaged in theoretical innovation by integrating their own characteristics. They have not only deeply criticized the flaws of the capitalist system but also proposed new socialist conceptions that fit the Philippine national conditions, promoting the development of the country's Left-wing movement to a certain extent.
1. A New Critique 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 Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) pointed out that as the crisis of the global capitalist system further intensifies, the internal contradictions and conflicts of imperialism continue to deepen. The advanced capitalist countries, led by the United States, wantonly seek hegemony in the world, triggering a new round of economic recession that has spread globally, bringing even more serious disasters to the people of the world [18]. Currently, the global economy remains mired in a state of low growth, with many capitalist countries on the brink of recession. The economic "recovery" following the COVID-19 pandemic failed to return production levels to their pre-pandemic state; business closures and large-scale layoffs are widespread, and productive forces are suffering severe damage and are in decline, while the socio-economic conditions of the working class and the laboring masses have further deteriorated. At the same time, capitalist 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 [19]. The Revolutionary Workers' Party of Mindanao (RPM-M) [20] believes that capitalism has now bypassed no corner of Philippine social life, and the basic contradictions of capitalism are intensifying and spreading on a global scale with unprecedented depth and breadth. In their pursuit of profit, capitalists do not hesitate to sacrifice human well-being and disrupt social order [21]. The Party of the Laboring Masses (PLM) [22] emphasizes that while capitalism uses natural resources and wealth for expansion, it simultaneously accumulates vast amounts of capital, and its development comes 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 [23].
2. New Visions for Socialism
Since entering the 21st century, under increasingly complex domestic and international conditions, Philippine leftist parties have actively explored the path to socialism while drawing on new concepts of socialism from abroad to propose their own visions for a socialist future.
In 2014, the CPP provided a macro-level vision for the future socialist path of the Philippines. First, under a socialist system, state power will serve the people, and the proletarian revolutionary party will play a leading role to properly coordinate 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 power of the masses, in synergy 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, and major transportation and communication facilities; through land reform and other bourgeois-democratic reforms, it will promote the recovery and sustainable development of the national economy [24].
In 2020, Sonny Melencio, Chairperson of the PLM, pointed out in a speech titled "The Capitalist Pandemic and the Socialist Solution" that a socialist society is one that focuses on solidarity and mutual aid. Traditionally, the Philippines refers to the spirit of collaboration or community solidarity as Bayanihan [25], emphasizing mutual assistance and unity between people—a characteristic of interpersonal relations during the tribal period of Philippine society. In light of this, the PLM believes that when responding to major crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, a society focused on solidarity and cooperation does not take market mechanisms and the supremacy of profit as its core principles, nor is it built on mutual competition; rather, it takes 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 [26].
Marx once pointed out: "Capitalist production collects the population together in great centres, and causes the urban population to achieve an ever-growing preponderance... 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" [27]. 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 within the production process that meets human needs [28].
(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 practical exploration. Leftist parties have committed themselves to strengthening Party building and inter-party cooperation to lay a more solid foundation for promoting social transformation.
First are the new measures in Party building work. Addressing the issues of party development and construction, the CPP held its Second National Congress in 2016, reaffirming the fundamental nature and ultimate goals of the Party. It emphasized that the Party will long adhere to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its guide to action and apply 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. Furthermore, 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 RPM-M pointed out that establishing a revolutionary party is not only a challenge for Marxists but also the central task for contemporary revolutionaries. Therefore, Party building must focus on the essence 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 [29]. Norberto Gonzales, Chairman of the PDSP [30], emphasized at the "49th Anniversary 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 developing electoral politics and achieving the goals of democratic socialism. In August 2020, Sonny Melencio, Chairman 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 party masses, so they profoundly understand the necessity of overthrowing capitalism, building socialism, and establishing a working-class government, can the vitality and vigor of the Party be effectively guaranteed [31].
Second is the new progress in inter-party exchanges. Since the 21st century, the Philippine leftist movement has also achieved some new breakthroughs in inter-party cooperation. To begin with, they have strengthened alliances with domestic parties and organizations on the electoral front. In the Philippine House of Representatives elections held in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010, the PDSP established an alliance with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) [32] and participated in the elections as part of the "majority" led by the Arroyo coalition. Next, they have broadened exchanges between leftist parties. Since the 21st century, the CPP has established extensive inter-party relations with other leftist parties, such as the Communist Party of Spain (reconstituted) [33], the Communist Party of Cuba, and the Communist Party of India (Maoist). They actively participate in and organize international anti-imperialist democratic struggles and carry out political cooperation, striving to win rights and well-being for the oppressed people of the Philippines and other countries. Finally, they have deepened exchanges and ties with other international organizations. In December 2022, the International Communist Alliance (ICL) was officially established, and the CPP extended revolutionary greetings to 15 communist parties and organizations from 14 countries. Following the death of CPP founder Sison, the ICL and many leftist parties around the world published messages of condolence, fully affirming Sison's revolutionary cause and contributions [34]. As the conflict in Northern Myanmar [35] continues to heat up and the Russia-Ukraine conflict becomes mired in a war of attrition, the RPM-M issued an appeal for international solidarity to trade union organizations in Myanmar and Ukraine, calling on workers and oppressed people worldwide to resolve conflicts through democratic and diplomatic means [36]. Additionally, in response to military attacks by the Turkish and Iranian governments on Kurds, the PLM, together 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 [37].
III. New Characteristics of the 21st-Century Philippine Leftist Movement
Compared to the 20th century, the Philippine leftist movement in the 21st century has made new progress in theoretical innovation and practical exploration. At the same time, it presents 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 Hindering the Integration of Leftist Forces
Following 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 initially show a clear trend toward fragmentation. Since entering the 21st century, the differences among Philippine leftist parties and organizations regarding ideology and strategic lines have continued to expand. Coupled with the dominance of political family forces in the Philippine political ecosystem, leftist politics and the party system have gradually shown a clear tendency toward fragmentation.
On the one hand, the differentiation and opposition among leftist forces have intensified the trend of fragmentation. In the 20th century, because the disagreement between the "Reaffirmists" and "Rejectionists" within the CPP could never be eliminated, the party eventually moved toward a split. Subsequently, using the threat of its armed wing—the New People’s Army (NPA)—the CPP instilled sectarianism in the "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 players in the Philippine political ecosystem, 21st-century Philippine leftist politics gradually took on a fragmented development state. To compete for a leftist voice, several "Rejectionist" factions attempted to integrate leftist forces in 2005 by establishing a pan-left alliance—the Struggle of the Masses (Laban ng Masa)—which included parties like the Struggle of Philippine Nationalists (SanLakas), the Workers' Party of the Philippines (PMP), and the Citizens' Action Party (Akbayan). However, because the various parties found it difficult to reach a consensus on ideology, electoral strategy, and the distribution of interests, the alliance failed to fully exert an integration effect in actual operation. When faced with practical issues such as the Moro struggle for self-determination [38], soldier mutiny movements [39], and the grassroots construction of a leftist alliance, internal disagreements proved irreconcilable. Consequently, with the CPP marginalized and some opposition parties in the alliance parting ways, leftist parties and organizations have consistently been unable to form a united and unified front.
On the other hand, political family forces have seriously hindered the integration of leftist forces. There are more than 170 clan-based families in the Philippines that hold sway over specific regions. These clans have operated in their respective territories for generations, controlling over 70 of the 81 provinces and two-thirds of the seats in Congress [40]. Looking at the general elections since the democratization process began, among the district representatives in the House of Representatives, those from political families consistently exceed 60% [41]. This indicates that the results of the Philippine "democratic elections" are always determined by political families, and clan forces have manipulated the country's political power structure. In this context, the fractured leftist parties and organizations usually choose to join the centrists or unite with other political forces to participate in elections. This not only intensifies the 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 the primary means to overthrow the bourgeois government and achieve socialism. Especially after Sison and others established the new Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the party’s emphasis on armed struggle increased further, even elevating it to a central strategic position. Following the Great Leftist Split, various leftist parties realized that the struggle against the bourgeoisie would be a long and arduous process. Since the 21st century, facing profound changes in both domestic and international situations, leftist parties in the Philippines have begun to explore socialist paths suited to their national conditions. By flexibly adjusting their strategies and modes of struggle, they have achieved a "dual-track" approach involving both armed struggle and legal political participation.
First, although the CPP claims to persist in long-term armed struggle, it has also expressed an openness to seeking opportunities to restart "peace negotiations" with the government. Under the concept of "talking while fighting," the administration of Rodrigo Duterte 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 [42], re-tabling the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees [43], and drafting the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms. These peace talks reflect the CPP’s ability to adapt to the changes of the times and meet the diverse needs of the masses. They indicate that the party, while safeguarding established socialist achievements, has begun to explore a socialist path that meets contemporary requirements and popular demands, providing new ideas and methods for the in-depth development of the Philippine leftist movement and comprehensive social progress. Second, while the Revolutionary Workers' Party of Mindanao (RPM-M) has not abandoned armed struggle, it has also conducted three rounds of peace talks with the Arroyo administration. The two sides signed documents such as the Rules of Local Consultations, the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities, and the Joint Resolution to Further Advance the Peace Process. It is evident that in the 21st century, the RPM-M has attempted to use the relatively "moderate" strategy of peace talks to sign agreements with the government alongside its persistence in armed struggle. 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 reflects not only the flexibility and pragmatism of the RPM-M in theory and practice but also the party’s concern for the well-being of the people. Finally, although the Philippine social democratic parties adhere to a "realpolitik" orientation and pursue a socialism that serves electoral politics, they have also made flexible adjustments to their struggle strategies based on practical needs. Taking the PDSP [44] as an example, the party was initially active in Philippine politics by forming alliances with the bourgeois government for elections. However, since entering the 21st century, the PDSP has worked to unite with a wide range of like-minded groups, organizations, and patriotic masses to jointly formulate strategies and policies that promote national economic, political, and cultural development, pushing the Philippine nation and society toward democracy and equity. This approach preserves the PDSP’s reformist concepts and meets the interests of its members while catering to the practical needs of local people, helping to garner more voter support.
3. Diversification of Strategic Goals: From Political Movements toward Broader Social Movements
Since the Cold War, the Philippine left has gradually grown into a political force that cannot be ignored. In this context, the leftist movement of 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 becoming a broader social movement. After the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, the social breadth of the Philippine leftist movement became even more apparent, successively setting labor rights, employment security, narrowing the wealth gap, achieving gender equality, protecting the ecological environment, guaranteeing medical and health services, and strengthening infrastructure construction as its primary goals.
The CPP emphasizes uniting all progressive forces in the New Era, expanding the party's mass base through land reform and the establishment of youth mass organizations. It also proposes building a broader mass alliance to better carry out large-scale mass movements in rural and urban areas, thereby achieving phased goals such as eliminating usury, reducing land rents, increasing workers' wages, and raising income from side-projects. The RPM-M calls for cultivating more proletarian intellectuals with class consciousness to advance social movements for women’s liberation, environmental protection, and children’s rights as supplementary struggles to the socialist movement. Additionally, 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 leftist movement is not only aimed at improving 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 at a spiritual level, providing strong support for forging a broad social consensus, promoting social progress in the Philippines, and achieving the comprehensive development of the people.
The Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM) [45] focuses mainly on issues such as labor rights, gender equality, and environmental protection, dedicating itself to building a leftist alliance among leftist 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 publicity and education activities to help the public enhance their awareness of democracy, while utilizing modern technology and social media to establish information networks among workers and youth. Furthermore, by uniting split leftist factions as much as possible and strengthening cooperation with regional and international progressive organizations, the PLM is expanding its influence while striving to play a role at the legislative and decision-making levels, thereby better promoting national development and social change.
IV. Future Outlook for the 21st-Century Philippine Leftist Movement
Looking ahead, the development of the Philippine leftist movement will largely depend on whether the country's leftist parties can demonstrate greater adaptability and creativity when facing challenges. Due to differing ideologies and political positions among the parties, the political influence of leftist forces remains limited overall, and the development trend of the Philippine leftist movement is not optimistic.
(1) The development of Communist parties is fraught with challenges influenced by various factors
Since their inception, 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, they face significant challenges in exploring a path for socialist development with Philippine characteristics.
First, the CPP faces internal pressures and external challenges. As of 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, having to face immense pressure from both the domestic government and external powers. Influenced by subjectivism, certain erroneous tendencies have emerged within the CPP. For instance, the party leadership relied too heavily on abstract theoretical frameworks when establishing struggle guidelines, neglecting in-depth analysis of domestic political, economic, and social dynamics, which caused decision-making to deviate from reality. Furthermore, internal splits caused by sectarianism have weakened the organizational cohesion and combat effectiveness of the party. Some leaders, when faced with differing voices, restricted intra-party democracy by excluding dissent, leading to a lag in theoretical innovation and strategic adjustment, which in turn weakened the party's ability to respond to complex situations. To some extent, these erroneous tendencies have weakened the CPP’s leadership role in promoting social change and posed obstacles to its long-term stability and development. Today, with the successive passings of party founder Sison, core leader Benito Tiamzon, and Secretary-General Wilma Tiamzon, a significant leadership vacuum has appeared. If the CPP cannot promptly formulate a new development strategy, under the multiple external challenges of suppression by the bourgeois government, intervention by the United States and other external forces, and a lack of international support, the situation of internal strife and external threats will not only weaken the CPP’s political influence and social mobilization capacity but also seriously constrain the future development of the Philippine leftist movement.
Second, the development of the RPM-M is influenced by regional factors, which to some extent hinders the development of the Philippine leftist movement and the formation of a leftist 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 is responsible for coordinating land conflicts between the Lumad people and the Moro people on Mindanao, consolidating the achievements of ethnic minorities like the Moro in their struggle for national self-determination, while remaining prepared to lead armed forces into conflict with the government. Although the party actively engages with revolutionary parties and organizations at home and abroad, striving to build a broader united front for a socialist revolution in the Philippines, the increasingly serious trend of fragmentation among leftist organizations and groups not only hinders the formation of a leftist alliance but also weakens the overall strength of both the RPM-M and Philippine leftist parties.
(2) Social democratic parties face arduous development
In promoting the Philippine leftist movement, the social democratic parties hope to combine Philippine historical traditions with contemporary realities, seeking a middle path of promoting democracy between socialism and capitalism. However, their development is difficult due to various constraints.
First, the PDSP lacks internal cohesion and faces a series of strategic dilemmas. Former PDSP Chairman Gonzalez once publicly stated that during the anti-Marcos dictatorship period, the party strictly carried out member education, emphasizing ideology and guiding thought; however, after the democratization process began, the party was embroiled in constant debate over whether to "remain a cadre party or transform into a mass/electoral party." Following the party's transformation, many cadres applied to leave. This indicates that the PDSP failed to effectively adjust its internal structure and strategic direction, leading to ideological disagreements, organizational transformation difficulties, and the loss of cadres. In the future, under the dual pressure 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 win broad social support remains an urgent issue. Furthermore, in an increasingly complex political environment, how to secure a place in parliamentary elections and the democratization process to promote social change is also a major challenge.
Second, the PLM will continue to promote the development of the Philippine leftist movement as a representative of emerging leftist forces, but it faces numerous difficulties. in recent years, the PLM has focused on uniting progressive leftist forces to explore socialist alternatives suited to Philippine national conditions, actively participating in general elections alongside other leftist parties and organizations. However, as an emerging leftist party, the PLM has failed to propose feasible action plans on how to empower the masses or lead them in creating a more just social system. The party’s constitution and program need to be perfected through constant adaptation to the Philippine political ecosystem. Furthermore, the 2022 election data shows that support for the Philippine left remains dismal. Therefore, for the PLM, which uses electoral politics as its primary mode of struggle, achieving democratic socialism through socio-economic reform will remain a long and difficult process.
Since its emergence, the Philippine left-wing movement has undergone a historical process characterized by early development, fragmentation, and diversified growth, advancing through twists and turns amidst arduous exploration. Rooted in their specific social environment and driven by their respective theoretical propositions, Philippine left-wing parties have gradually formed a multifaceted developmental posture. However, limited by differences in ideology and political stance, the various left-wing parties in the Philippines have remained unable to form a sincerely united front. Consequently, they find it difficult to shake the dominance of clan forces [46] in Philippine party politics. Only by placing the unification of the Left on the agenda as soon as possible can they take the essential step toward a transition to socialism. As the Philippine socialist Herbert Docena has stated, only by "building a broad, united, and democratic mass movement" can they "topple the autocracy and confront other elites who are eager to regain power." [47] Considering the general trend of Philippine left-wing parties continuously adjusting and accumulating strength in the 21st century, the left-wing movement may encounter new opportunities as it advances further. Looking to the future, what kind of theoretical innovations and practical explorations the Philippine left-wing parties will undertake, whether the country's left-wing movement can demonstrate stronger resilience and creativity in the face of challenges, and whether its development can propel the Philippines toward a more equitable, democratic, and sustainable path of development remains a subject for further research and observation.
(Author's Affiliations: Institute of Political Science, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS); Capital Governance Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: World Socialist Studies, Issue 2, 2025