Hei Ran: New Trends in the Philippine Left-Wing Movement in the 21st Century
As an important political and social force in modern Philippine history, the core objectives of the Philippine Left are to oppose social inequality, promote land reform, oppose imperialism, and strive for change 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 certain 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 in the Philippines laid the foundation for the rise of the country's leftist movement. In the early 1930s, the founding of the Communist Party of the Philippines (Partido Komunistang Pilipinas-1930, abbreviated as "PKP") raised the curtain on the Philippine Left movement. In the mid-to-late 20th century, with the successive establishment of multiple leftist parties, the movement began to exhibit diverse characteristics. Since the 21st century, leftist parties have maintained a degree of influence within the Philippine political ecosystem. Tracing the evolution of the Philippine Left and studying the development trends and primary characteristics of the country's major leftist parties helps us assess the prospects of the movement and deepens our analysis of Southeast Asian leftist politics and social movements.
I. The Evolution of the Philippine Left Movement
The Philippine Left movement is the result of the combined effects of colonial history, class contradictions, and social currents. Despite experiencing suppression and internal splits, leftist parties remain a force that cannot be ignored in the Philippine political ecosystem, and their developmental trajectory has followed a general trend of advancing through twists and turns.
(1) The Rise and Early Development of the Philippine Left Movement
In the early 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 through the 1898 Treaty of Paris and subsequently established formal colonial rule in 1902 after suppressing local armed resistance. During this period, the Philippine socio-economic and political structures 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. Within the intertwining of anti-colonial struggles and social reform movements, leftist thought gradually emerged. In 1901, the exiled politician Isabelo de los Reyes returned to the country, bringing with him progressive foreign works on class, revolution, and proletarian liberation, such as Entre Campesinos (Among the Peasants) and Vida e Obras de Carlos Marx (The Life and Works of Karl Marx). These provided new ideological weapons for the Philippine struggle against Spanish colonial rule and the national independence movement. In 1902, Reyes, along with Hermenegildo Cruz, formed the first modern labor federation in the Philippines—the Democratic Labor Union (UOD) [1]. It called on the national working class to launch strikes to protest the oppressive labor policies of the bourgeois government and to fight for basic rights and welfare. Under the influence of the Russian October Revolution, the class consciousness of Philippine workers and peasants gradually strengthened, leading professional involvement in social resistance. As Marxism further integrated with the workers' and peasants' movements, labor leaders such as Crisanto Evangelista founded the Workers’ Party of the Philippines (POF) in 1924, laying the foundation for the rise of the movement.
In the early 1930s, under the colonial oppression of US imperialism and the suppression by the Philippine comprador-heavy bourgeoisie, the landlord class, and the bureaucratic class, Evangelista and others responded to the growing call for national independence and social liberation by establishing the Central Committee of the PKP in Manila in 1930. This officially launched the Philippine Left movement. In 1931, the PKP held its first National Congress, where General Secretary Evangelista issued the "Message to the Philippine Laboring People" and proposed the party's minimum program: to overthrow the rule of imperialism and feudalism and establish an independent, democratic Philippines. The party was also committed 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. However, shortly after the first PKP Congress, 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 Comintern adopted the strategy of the People's War [2], requiring Communist parties and all mobilizable forces to unite in an anti-fascist united front. At the strong demand 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 once again outlawed. Under the forceful 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 Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) [3]—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 turn to peaceful activities to regroup; the Philippine Left movement entered a period of low ebb.
(2) Splits and Diverse Development of the Philippine Left Movement
In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos came to power. Because he continued the pro-US policies of the previous administration, many leftists suffered persecution. During this period, the Philippine Left began to show diverse characteristics; in addition to the Communist Party, a number of organizations and groups advocating democratic socialism emerged.
On one hand, the PKP attempted to revitalize the movement by strengthening party building. However, after the first Great Rectification Movement in 1966 [4], internal factional disputes intensified. 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, 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 and persisted in using Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought as its guide, adopted the slogan "Strike the local tyrants and distribute the land" [5], aiming to mobilize peasants for a land revolution. This move not only fit the social reality of the rural-majority Philippines but also responded to the interests of the Philippine working class and peasantry. Consequently, the new organization grew rapidly, becoming the most influential leftist party in the Philippines.
On the other hand, influenced by democratic socialist currents from Europe and Latin America, some Philippine intellectuals and politicians advocated for social reform through democratic means. In the 1960s, a group of organizations advocating democratic socialism appeared within the Philippine Left. In 1973, the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party (PDSP) was formally established. It put forward slogans such as "Restore Democracy" and "Freedom and Human Rights," primarily aiming to overthrow the Marcos dictatorship, promote land reform, and restore political democracy and human rights to maintain social equity and justice.
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, combined with a prevailing sectarian style and growing secessionist tendencies, the CPP and its mass organizations were gradually marginalized within Philippine party politics during this movement. Meanwhile, the PDSP actively promoted the Philippine democratic transition and participated in the reconstruction of a democratic society. Utilizing the revolutionary opportunity and the wave of the movement, it transitioned from a revolutionary party to a parliamentary and participating party, even briefly becoming a partner in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s coalition government.
In the early 1990s, the CPP launched the Second Great Rectification Movement to purge erroneous tendencies such as subjectivism and sectarianism. Initially, the party was divided into "Reaffirmists" and "Rejectionists" based on ideological differences. As the factional struggle escalated, the "Rejectionists" split into several factions, such as the Revolutionary Workers' Party of the Philippines (RPM-P), which claimed to uphold Marxism-Leninism but abandoned Mao Zedong Thought; the Workers' Party of the Philippines (PMP); and the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Philippines (MLP), which upheld Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought while criticizing CPP sectarianism. Some of these leftist parties later split further into various political factions; some began to practice democratic socialism, while other organizations and groups continued to function as the moderate left within Philippine party politics. Overall, the 20th-century Philippine Left movement exhibited a developmental characteristic of diversification.
II. New Developments of the Philippine Left 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 movement.
(1) Overview of Major Philippine Leftist Parties
Based on differences in guiding ideologies and political positions, 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 Revolutionary Workers' Party–Mindanao. The CPP upholds Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, and its struggle is aimed at creating conditions for the Philippine socialist revolution and construction. The party's highest goal is to achieve national and social liberation, and ultimately, communism. Simultaneously, the CPP proposes the political line of "People's War," advocating for the completion of the Philippine national democratic revolution through a protracted people's war, followed by the advancement of the proletarian socialist revolution. The Revolutionary Workers' Party–Mindanao (RPM-M) was founded in 2001, resulting from a split within the CPP's "Rejectionists." Ideologically, this party upholds Marxism-Leninism but opposes the CPP's "People's War" line, advocating for national reform through open democratic struggle and anti-imperialist struggle to eventually move toward a higher stage of socialist revolution worldwide.
The primary representatives of the Social Democratic parties are the PDSP and the Party of the Laboring Masses (PLM). These two parties believe in democratic socialism and view democratic elections as the legitimate means to achieve socialism. The PDSP's guiding ideology stems from Philippine nationalist traditions and the theories of Western European social democratic parties. While identifying with the basic values of the Socialist International, the party also draws on the policy practices of various Western European social democratic parties and formulates policies in combination with the specific conditions of the Philippines. Thus, the PDSP describes itself as a "nationalist, democratic, socialist, and revolutionary" Philippine party, with "realizing democratic socialism" as its ultimate goal. The PLM was founded in 2009, with its members consisting 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, popular participation, and social justice. Although it does not explicitly state that it is guided by Marxism, it accepts socialist principles to a certain extent.
(2) New Theoretical Explorations of the Philippine Left Movement
Since the 21st century, Philippine leftist parties have innovated theoretically by integrating their own unique characteristics. They have not only deeply criticized the flaws of the capitalist system but also proposed new conceptions of socialism that fit the Philippine national context, to a certain extent driving the development of the movement.
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. Filipino leftists took this as an opportunity to further deepen their 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 pursue hegemony in the world, triggering a new round of economic recession that has rippled across the globe, 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 economic recession. The economic "recovery" following the COVID-19 pandemic failed to restore production levels to their pre-pandemic state; business closures and large-scale layoffs are widespread, and productive forces are suffering serious destruction and are in a state of decline. The socio-economic conditions of the working class and the laboring masses have also further deteriorated. Meanwhile, 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 causes consumer demand to lag behind the expansion of production, which in turn triggers 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 the pursuit of profit, capitalists do not hesitate to sacrifice human well-being and disrupt social order. The Party of the Masses (PLM) emphasizes that while capitalism uses natural resources and wealth for expansion, it simultaneously accumulates massive 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.
- New Prospects for Socialism Since entering the 21st century, under more complex domestic and international circumstances, Philippine leftist parties have actively explored the socialist path while drawing on new concepts of socialism from abroad to propose visions for socialism.
In 2014, the CPP provided a macro-level outlook on the future socialist path for 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 [6], enabling the broad masses to fully exercise their individual and collective rights. Second, the state must formulate a socialist constitution. The cause of socialism 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.
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 centered on solidarity and mutual assistance. Traditionally, the Philippines refers to the spirit of collaboration or community solidarity as Bayanihan [7], emphasizing mutual aid and unity between people—a characteristic of interpersonal relations during the tribal society period of the Philippines. 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 upon mutual competition; rather, it takes solidarity and cooperation as its fundamental principles. Based on this concept, the party advocates integrating the spirit of collaboration into the vision of socialism.
Marx once pointed out: "Capitalist production... collects the population together in great centres, and causes the town population to become preponderant... on the one hand it 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; it therefore violates the conditions necessary to lasting fertility of the soil." Based on a deep reflection on the relationship between humanity and nature, some Philippine leftist parties 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, restoring the ecology and protecting the environment during the production process aimed at meeting human needs.
(III) New Advances in the Practice of the Philippine Leftist Movement Since the 21st century, the Philippine leftist movement has made new progress in the process of practical exploration. Leftist parties have committed themselves to strengthening Party building and inter-party cooperation to lay a more solid foundation for promoting social change.
First, new measures in Party building. Addressing the development and construction of the Party, the CPP convened its Second National Congress in 2016, reaffirming the Party’s basic nature and ultimate goal, emphasizing that the Party will persist over the long term in taking Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought as its guide for action and applying it to the specific 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 importance 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 RPMP pointed out that building 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 nature of global capitalism and its specific impacts in the economic, political, and ecological fields, formulating and implementing corresponding strategies to effectively advance the democratic process. Norberto Gonzales, Chairperson of the PDSP, emphasized at the "49th Anniversary Congress 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, 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, by continuously raising the revolutionary consciousness of the working class and the party rank-and-file—enabling them to deeply understand the necessity of overthrowing capitalism, building socialism, and establishing a working-class government—the vitality and vigor of the Party can be effectively guaranteed.
Second, new progress in inter-party exchanges. Since the 21st century, the Philippine leftist movement has also achieved several new breakthroughs in inter-party cooperation. First, it has strengthened alliances with domestic 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), seeking to strive for the rights and well-being of the oppressed people in the Philippines and other countries. Finally, it has 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 Sison, the founder of the CPP, the ICL and various leftist parties worldwide issued messages of condolence, giving full recognition to Sison's revolutionary cause and his contributions. As conflicts in northern Myanmar escalated and the Russia-Ukraine conflict fell into a stalemate, the RPMP issued an appeal for international solidarity to trade unions in Myanmar and Ukraine, calling on workers and oppressed people worldwide to resolve conflicts through democratic and diplomatic means. In addition, addressing military attacks launched by the Turkish and Iranian governments against Kurds, the PLM joined NGOs such as the Socialist Alliance of Australia (SAA) and the Confederation of Indonesian People’s Movement (KPRI) in issuing a statement calling for an end to the war through peaceful means.
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, while 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 Hindering the Integration of Leftist Forces Following the great split of the Philippine Left in the mid-to-late 20th century, the country's leftist movement developed in a diversified direction but did not show a clear trend of fragmentation. Since entering the 21st century, as disagreements over ideology and strategic lines among Philippine leftist parties and organizations have continued to expand—compounded by the dominant position of political family forces in the Philippine political ecosystem—the leftist political and party system has gradually exhibited a clear tendency toward fragmentation.
On the one hand, the division and opposition among leftist forces have intensified the trend of fragmentation. In the 20th century, because the disagreement between the "Reaffirmists" and the "Rejectionists" within the CPP could never be eliminated, the party ultimately moved toward a split. Thereafter, the CPP, relying on the threat of its armed wing—the New People’s Army (NPA)—indoctrinated "Rejectionists" and young cadres with sectarianism, further intensifying ideological opposition within the party, making the integration of the two factions extraordinarily difficult. As the "Rejectionists" successively split into multiple forces and became independent political actors in the Philippine political ecosystem, 21st-century Philippine leftist politics gradually showed a fragmented developmental trend. In order to compete for the right to speak for the Left, several factions of the "Rejectionists" attempted to integrate leftist forces in 2005, forming a pan-left alliance—Laban ng Masa (Struggle of the Masses)—which included the SanLakas, the Workers' Party of the Philippines (PMP), and the Akbayan Citizens' Action Party. However, because the various parties found it difficult to reach a consensus 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 faced with practical issues—such as the struggle for Moro national self-determination, soldier mutinies, and the grassroots construction of the leftist alliance—the internal differences of opinion within the alliance proved difficult to bridge. Consequently, with the CPP 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 clan families in the Philippines that hold sway over local regions; these magnates have operated in their respective territories for generations, controlling more than 70 of the 81 provinces nationwide and two-thirds of the seats in Congress. Looking across the various general elections since the democratization process in the Philippines began, among the district representatives in the House of Representatives, those from political families have consistently exceeded 60%. This indicates that the results of "democratic elections" in the Philippines are always decided by political families, and clan forces have manipulated the country’s political power structure. In this context, fragmented leftist parties and organizations often choose to join the centrists or unite with other political forces to run in elections together. 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 a "Single Strategy" to a "Dual Strategy" In the 20th century, the Philippine Left emphasized armed struggle as the primary means to overthrow the bourgeois government and realize socialism. Especially after Sison and others founded the new CPP, the emphasis the Party placed on armed struggle increased further, 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 a socialist path suited to the country's conditions, flexibly adjusting their struggle strategies and methods, and achieving a "dual-track" parallel of armed struggle and legal political participation.
First, although the CPP claims to persist in long-term armed struggle, it has also expressed an open-minded willingness to seek opportunities to restart "peace negotiations" with the government. Under the logic of "talking while fighting," the Rodrigo Duterte government conducted four rounds of peace talks with the National Democratic Front (NDFP), the CPP's united front organization. Both sides reached a series of agreements while fundamentally maintaining a ceasefire, such as reaffirming the Hague Joint Declaration, re-drafting the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG), and drafting the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER). These negotiations reflect the CPP's ability to adapt to the changes of the times and meet the diverse needs of the masses. It indicates that while maintaining established socialist achievements, the Party has begun to explore a socialist path that meets the requirements of the era and the aspirations of the people, providing new ideas and methods for promoting the deep development of the Philippine left-wing movement and overall social progress.
Second, while not renouncing armed struggle, the Revolutionary Workers' Party of Mindanao (RPM-M) also engaged in three rounds of peace talks with the Arroyo government. 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. Thus, it can be seen that in the 21st century, while persisting in armed struggle, the RPM-M has also attempted to sign peace agreements with the government through the relatively "moderate" strategy of peace negotiations. 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 flexibility and pragmatism of the RPM-M’s theory and practice but also demonstrates the Party’s concern for the people's livelihood and well-being.
Finally, although the Socialist Party of the Philippines (SPP) maintains a "Realpolitik" orientation and pursues a socialism that serves electoral politics, based on practical needs, various parties have also made corresponding flexible adjustments in their struggle strategies. Taking the SPP as an example, the party initially stayed active in Philippine politics by forming electoral coalitions with bourgeois governments. However, since entering the 21st century, the SPP has strived to unite with a wide range of like-minded groups, organizations, and patriotic masses to jointly formulate strategies and policies to promote national economic, political, and cultural development, pushing the Philippine state and society toward democracy and equity. This approach preserves the SPP’s reformist concepts and satisfies the interests of party members while catering to the practical needs of the local populace, which is conducive to gaining more voter support.
(3) Diversification of Strategic Objectives: 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 20th-century Philippine left-wing movement focused on class struggle and land reform. Entering the 21st century, as new social contradictions have become increasingly prominent, the Philippine left-wing movement has tended to develop toward broader social movements. Following the outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis, the social breadth of the Philippine left-wing movement became even more evident, successively setting labor rights, employment security, narrowing the wealth gap, achieving gender equality, ecological protection, 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 rural and urban areas, thereby achieving periodic goals such as eliminating usury, reducing land rents, increasing workers' wages, and increasing income from side-line production. 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 to the socialist movement. In addition, the Party also supports and extensively mobilizes workers, peasants, and grassroots masses to develop self-help organizations such as cooperatives, thereby jointly promoting community construction and development. This demonstrates that the 21st-century Philippine left-wing movement does not only aim 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 on a spiritual level, thereby providing strong support for forging a broad social consensus, promoting Philippine social progress, and realizing the comprehensive development of the people.
The Party of the Laboring Masses (PLM) primarily focuses on issues such as labor rights, gender equality, and environmental protection, dedicating itself to building a left-wing alliance 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 simultaneously utilizing modern technology and social media to establish propaganda networks among workers and youth. Furthermore, by uniting left-wing splinter forces as much as possible and strengthening cooperation with regional and international progressive organizations, the PLM enters the legislative and policy-making levels while striving to expand its own influence, so as to better promote national development and social change.
IV. Prospects for the Philippine Left-Wing Movement in the 21st Century
Looking ahead, 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 development trend of the Philippine left-wing movement is not optimistic.
(1) The Development of Communist Parties is Fraught with Challenges Influenced by Various Factors
Since their inception, Philippine communist parties 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 significant challenges in exploring a path of socialist development 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 party 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 and must simultaneously face immense pressure from the domestic government and external powers. Due to the influence of subjectivism, certain erroneous tendencies have successively been exposed within the CPP. For instance, when establishing struggle guidelines, the Party leadership relied too heavily on abstract theoretical frameworks and neglected in-depth analysis of domestic political, economic, and social dynamics, leading to decision-making that deviated from reality. Furthermore, party 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 led to 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 deaths of Party founder Sison, 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, under the multiple external challenges of suppression by the bourgeois government, interference from the United States and other external forces, and a lack of international support, this situation of internal strife and external pressure 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 primarily in the rural areas of the southern Philippines. It is responsible for coordinating land conflicts between the Lumad [9] and the Moro people on Mindanao and consolidating the achievements of ethnic minorities like the Moro in their struggle for national self-determination, while also remaining constantly prepared to lead armed forces in conflicts with the government. Although the Party actively engages with 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 Social Democratic Parties Face Difficulties in Their Development
In the process of promoting the Philippine left-wing movement, the Socialist Party of the Philippines hopes to combine Philippine historical traditions with contemporary realities to find a democratic middle way between socialism and capitalism. However, its development has been difficult due to various constraints.
First, the SPP lacks internal cohesion and faces a series of strategic dilemmas. Former SPP Chairman Gonzales once publicly stated that during the period of resistance against the Marcos dictatorship, the SPP strictly carried out member education and emphasized ideology and guiding thought. After the start of the democratization process, debates persisted within the Party over whether to "remain a cadre party or transform into a mass party and electoral party." Following the Party's transformation, many cadres applied to leave the Party. This indicates that the SPP failed to effectively adjust its internal structure and strategic direction, leading to ideological divisions, 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 realizing democratic socialism, whether the SPP can propose feasible solutions adapted to the contemporary economic and political environment and gain broad support in society 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 feasible strategies to promote social change, is also an important 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 with progressive left-wing forces to explore socialist alternatives that suit the Philippine national context, 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 regarding how to empower the masses and lead them to create a more equitable and just 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 primary mode 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 in a 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 diversified development trend. However, limited by differences in ideology and political positions, the various left-wing parties in the Philippines have consistently been unable to form a sincerely united camp. Consequently, it is difficult to shake the dominance of family dynasties in Philippine party politics. Only by putting left-wing unity on the agenda as soon as possible can an important step toward a socialist transition be taken. As Philippine socialist Herbert Docena said, it is only through "building a broad, united, and democratic mass movement" that it is possible to "overthrow autocracy and counter other elites eager to regain power." Considering the general trend of Philippine left-wing parties constantly adjusting and building strength in the 21st century, the left-wing movement may encounter new opportunities as it advances. Looking forward, what kind of theoretical innovations and practical explorations 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 development path remain subjects for 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, Issue 2, 2025 Web Editor: Zhang Jian