Marxism in the Philippines: Continuing Engagements, a review

by Regina Coeli T. Aquino | POLSC 14 THV-1

Marxism in the Philippines: Continuing Engagements is a compilation of eight select articles
presented during the third UP Third World Studies Center (TWSC) Marxism in the Philippines Lecture in
2005. Published in 2010 by Anvil Publishing, the book analyzes the relevance of philosopher Karl Marxs
ideas to the Philippine context. Each article explores and critiques the praxis of the ideology by the
Philippine Left, and its relationship with different sectors such as the peasantry, the womens movement,
the civil society, and the Church.
The first paper is UP art professor Alice Guillermos Marxism and Ideological Strategies.
Guillermo criticizes the bourgeoisiess ideological strategies in various domains of Philippine culture,
including the arts, nationalism, class politics, globalization, and civil society.
Among the contributors of this book, Dr. Alice Guillermo is the one who raised the typical
Marxist arguments. I have no problem with her thrust that Philippine art, in whatever style, can be
vehicles for political content (p. 10) in the sense that such works can convey progressive ideological
convictions that Filipinos can adopt to establish more just political and economic systems.
Dr. Guillermos bias starts to become evident in her discussion of nationalism. She contrasts the
discourses of bourgeois or ilustrado nationalism and national democracy: the former is anti-people
because of its vacillating and accommodationist character (p. 12), while the latter is pro-people because
[i]t strives for political, economic, and cultural independence and the achievement of true sovereignty
(p. 11). Her obvious support for the national democratic movement blinds her from the flawed views and
practices of the Philippine Left which were discussed instead by the other contributors of the book.
On religion, Dr. A. Guillermo (2010) goes on to note something important, with which I heartily
agree: [t]he large role that religion plays in the present national life and culture is such that there remains
little appreciation of the secular state that is constitutive of modern republicanism (p. 16). Religious
groups religion-based convictions are valid political inputs. But in debates, they must learn to translate
their religious values into secular principles that will benefit everyone regardless of faith (Cauthen, n.d.).

Finally, her discussion of globalization is again reflective of her leaning towards Marxism. But I
think her Marxist critique on globalization, particularly on neoliberalist global economic discourse, is
valid. Neoliberalism as an economic doctrine has roll[ed] back welfare provisions (Heywood, 2011a)
and exposed public goods and services such as education and health to privatization, making them
inaccessible to the poorer majority of Filipinos. I also agree with the Marxist critique on the implications
of globalization on culture. While cultural exchange takes various forms such as localization,
regionalization, and multi-culturalism (Heywood, 2011b), the cultures of more powerful countries such as
the USA will still spread more widely than those of less powerful ones, thus bringing about cultural
hegemony and homogeneity.
The second paper is UP Philippine literature professor Ramon Guillermos Notes on Zeus
Salazars Filipino Translation of The Communist Manifesto. Guillermo criticizes Salazars purist view
that some concepts in Marxism such as bourgeois, proletariat, and feudalism cannot be applied and
linguistically translated to Filipino because of the differences between European culture, from which
Marxism originated, and Filipino culture.
Prof. Guillermo was right when he pointed out that while Filipino culture and history is definitely
different from that of Europe, nevertheless, there are Filipinos who own means of social production and
employ labor, and there are Filipinos who do not own any means of social production and sell their labor
power. Ideologies may have been created at a specific point in history by a specific culture, but
ideological concepts have assumptions that may be applicable to another.
The third paper is Kathleen Weekleys Marxism, Nationalism, Globalization, and the Left.
Weekley criticizes the Philippine Left for viewing the State as mere imperialist puppets not worthy of
political engagement. She also urges it to open itself to larger political arenas opened up by globalization.
I agree with Weekleys free advice for the Left to do away with their non-engagement stance with
the State. I think that is the reason why they do not get the support of many Filipinos. The Left never
bothered to lobby with the State because it firmly believes that State will never side with people and will
only protect its interests and those of its foreign backers. The people disapprove of its marching militancy

because they never saw the party sit down. I think the Left should engage the State in accepted political
arenas, and from there expose the States failure to do its mandate to serve and protect the people. If the
people understand why it is sometimes necessary to fight for their rights on the streets, maybe then will
they appreciate the Lefts militant and uncompromising stance.
Weekley (2010) also argued that the Left must go beyond nationalism in the face of globalization.
One of her suggestions is that the Left consider federalism as a postnationalist political form. Some
politicians, scholars and experts believe that federalism would respond to the geographical obstacle and
differences caused by cultural diversity on governance because it allows fragmentation while at the same
time promoting national interest (Brillantes & Moscare, 2002, p. 1). However, the UP Department of
Political Sciences Primer on Federalism (as cited in Viray, n.d.) says that no one advocates yet a
particular type of federalism that is suited to the country.
Weekley advocated federalism for the same reasons, but she also failed to suggest what type of
federalism would be good for the country. She also failed to see the risks of adopting federalism if our
present political problems such as political dynasties and uneven distribution of wealth among the regions
will not be resolved before the government transforms into a federalist one (Viray, n.d.)
The fourth paper is Eduardo Tadems Marxism, the Peasantry, and Agrarian Revolution in the
Philippines. Tadem explored the actual experiences of peasants from three barangays in Central Luzon
with the former Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (PKP-HMB) and the
re-established Communist Party of the Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA). Tadem has two main
observations: 1) the armed movements addressed only political concerns and did not substantially take
on pressing economic concerns such as the land issue (Tadem, 2010, p. 99); and 2) the peasants help or
resist both the communist and the state forces.
I think studies like Tadems are important so that we do not merely rely on macrostudies, because
sometimes the overarching concepts of such broad studies do not hold true in specific circumstances. As
Tadem (2010) said, it is also necessary and essential that more attention be paid to the local and direct
experiences of the oppressed sectors that are assumed to be the mass bases of a revolutionary struggle.

The fifth paper is Aida Santoss Marxism and the Philippine Womens Movement: Reflection on
Praxis. Narrating her own experiences in the movement, Santos unveiled the tensions between Marxism
and feminism, particularly the formers neglect of womens reproductive issues which arise from their
being biologically female.
This paper, which is very similar to that of Tadem in the sense that it focused on a specific
experience, had some interesting revelations: 1) some male members in national democratic movement
still ordered the female members a lot; and 2) Marxist hardliners accuse feminists of being divisive for
deviating from Marxisms class analysis of gender issues. Personally, I salute leftist activists for their
principled and sincere intentions to create a more just system. But if some of them do not practice the Left
preachings of equality and do not graciously accept criticisms on the partys beliefs and practices, then
just how different are they from the State that they oppose?
The sixth paper is Armando Malay Jr.s Marxism and Civil Society: The Uneasy Encounter.
Malay argues that the civil society is an instrument of the ruling class, and Marxist-Leninists remain
cautious when engaging with them because doing so seriously may water down the revolution into a
series of reforms something that happened during the EDSA People Power 1 & 2.
The validity of Malays arguments is based on its practicality. Malay (2010) asserts that the
countrys strong civil society makes revolution impossible, and if the Left wants the support of the
people, their politicization of the masses inevitably has to employ some of the spectacular gimmickry
used by the ruling class. With this I heartily agree. Politics is also about strategy. The ruling class has
used spectacle to keep the masses politically unintelligent. If the Left can use that to genuinely raise the
masses political awareness and reverse their situation, I think that will be justifiable.
The seventh paper is Caroline Haus The Chinese Question: A Marxist Interpretation. Hau
proves that issues on race and ethnicity can be analyzed using class analysis by examining the alienated
position of the Chinese in Philippine society and economy.
Haus argument is reflective of the Marxist idea of internationalism, or the belief that the
oppressed and the marginalized from all over the world must collectively struggle for their emancipation

(Wikipedia, n.d.), with which I agree. Chinese tycoons in the country like Henry Sy and Lucio Tan
exploit Filipinos and Chinese workers and have unfair advantage over small Filipino and Chinese
businessman. Because of them, Chinese immigrants are discriminated in the Philippines because they are
generalized as greedy profit-seekers.
The last paper is Joseph Scalices Marxism and Philippine Theoogy. Scalice argued that the
merger of Philippine theology and Marxism provides an ethical commitment to the creation of a more just
society.
Scalices argument that revolutionary religion, particularly liberation theology, can emancipate
the masses as much as conservative religions can enslave them has been articulated many times by many
others. What stands out for me is his prescriptive argument that Marxists must deconstruct the class
contradictions behind the Christian Bible. I just hoped that he extended it to other similar religious
doctrines.
Marxism remains a valid and useful perspective in analyzing political, economic, and cultural
issues in the Philippines. But adhering too firmly to some of its tenets may not anymore be effective
political strategies in fast-changing contexts of the present time. Marxist forces in the country must be
open to criticisms and recommendations from inside and outside of their parties, especially if those will
bring about a genuine revolution, a positive system change in the Philippines.

References:
Brillantes, A. B. Jr. & Moscare, D. (2002). Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines: Lessons
from Global Community. Paper presented at the International Conference of the East West
Center,
Kuala
Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Retrieved
from
http://www.upncpag.org/pdf/decentralization_federalism.pdf
Cauthen, K. (n.d.). Church and State, Politics and Religion. Frontiernet.net. Retrieved from
http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/relandpo.htm
Guillermo, A. G. (2010). Marxism and Ideological Strategies. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L.
L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 8-26). Mandaluyong City:
Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Guillermo, R. G. (2010). Notes on Zeus Salazars Filipino Translation of The Communist Manifesto. In
Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing
engagements (pp. 31-45). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.

Hau, C. S. (2010). The Chinese Question: A . In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.),

Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 156-187). Mandaluyong City: Anvil
Publishing, Inc.
Heywood, A. (2011a). The Economy in a Global Age [Chapter 4]. In Global Politics (pp. 83-110). US
and UK: Palgrave Macmillan
Heywood, A. (2011b). Society in a Global Age [Chapter 4]. In Global Politics (pp. 136-180). US and
UK: Palgrave Macmillan
Malay, A. Jr. (2010). Marxism and Civil Society: The Uneasy Encounter. In
Encarnacion-Tadem, T.
S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 141-155).
Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Santos, A. F. (2010). Marxis and the Philippine Womens Movement: Reflections on Praxis. In
Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing
engagements (pp. 113-140). Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Scalice, J. (2010). Marxism and Philippine Theology. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L.
(eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 191-213). Mandaluyong City:
Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Tadem, E. C. (2010). Marxism, the Peasantry, and Agrarian Revolution in the Philippines. In
Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. & Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing
engagements (pp. 79-108). Mandaluyong City: Anvil
Publishing, Inc.
Viray, J. R. B. (n.d.). Federalism: Issues, Risks and Disadvantages. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2052348/Federalism-Issues-Risks-and-Disadvantages
Weekley, K. (2010). Marxism, Nationalism, Globalization, and the Left. In Encarnacion-Tadem, T. S. &
Samson, L. L. (eds.), Marxism in the Philippines: continuing engagements (pp. 46-74).
Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing, Inc
Proletarian
internationalism.
(n.d.)
In
Wikipedia.
Retrieved
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism