On the Question of the CPP-NPA-NDF
A Critique of Romanticised 'Revolutionary Adventurism' In Defence of Marxist-Leninist Integrity!
Introduction
It is both perplexing and deeply frustrating to witness the continued romanticization of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) among certain circles of Western communists. These individuals, who are often far removed from the reality of the situation on the ground, continue to idolize the CPP-NPA without a critical understanding of the material conditions that have shaped their history. This blind idolization is not grounded in a rigorous application of historical materialism but instead reflects an ideological inertia, an unwillingness to subject the organization and its actions to the scrutiny they deserve.
As a British Marxist-Leninist who has personally visited the Philippines, studied its unique sociopolitical landscape with a historical materialist perspective, and engaged deeply with the local population—both through my familial ties and regular communication—I feel compelled to challenge this pervasive ignorance. The reality of the situation in the Philippines, as shaped by its particular history of imperialism, feudalism, and comprador capitalism, cannot be adequately understood without a deep engagement with the specifics of its socio-economic structures. To accept the CPP-NPA uncritically, without regard for the practical implications of their actions on the Philippine masses, is to ignore the fundamental principles of Marxist-Leninist analysis.
The romanticization of the CPP-NPA, often by those who have never set foot in the Philippines, reveals a profound detachment from the lived experiences of the Filipino people. Rather than blindly following an ideological narrative, it is essential to approach the situation with the critical eye of historical materialism, recognizing that revolutionary movements must be evaluated not only on their theoretical positions but on their practical impact on the working class and oppressed peoples they claim to represent. Without this, any discussion of revolutionary struggle remains shallow and disconnected from the material realities that shape the course of history.
To understand the realities faced by the Filipino proletariat, one must move beyond simplistic hero-worship and engage in a rigorous critique of the CPP-NPA’s practices, history, and current trajectory. The Filipino people, whose material conditions form the foundation of this struggle, deserve more than superficial Western narratives. Were I Filipino, I would find such ignorance and revisionism not just infuriating but deeply insulting. The tendency of some communists to decry the opportunism of Russia's Socialist Revolutionaries during Lenin's era or the adventurism of Peru’s Shining Path while ignoring similar failings in the CPP-NPA is a glaring inconsistency, born either of ignorance or a shallow understanding of Philippine political dynamics.
Let us be clear: Philippine politics is not a mirror of Western societies or even those of its Asian neighbours. It operates within a historically specific set of contradictions that must be carefully analysed through the dialectics of materialism. To reduce these complexities to dogmatic generalities is to commit the grave error of vulgar materialism, forsaking the methodological rigor that Marxism-Leninism demands. If you are the type to skim through texts and erupt in indignation when confronted with challenges to undialectical dogmatism, this article may not be for you. However, if you embrace the principles of Marxism-Leninism, particularly the dialectical imperatives of self-criticism and seeking truth from facts, then perhaps you will find value in this critique.
As Marxists, we understand that study is not just a prerequisite but a lifelong endeavour. Marxism-Leninism is a science—a guide to revolutionary action. It is not a static set of phrases to memorize but a dynamic method for analysing and transforming material conditions. The works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao provide not just theoretical insights but a framework for addressing new contradictions. Complacency is the enemy of study. We must adopt an insatiable hunger for knowledge and a tireless commitment to sharing that knowledge. Conditions evolve, and only through constant study can we adapt and remain effective in our praxis.
The Philippines, with its unique sociological and historical development, demands the same level of analytical depth. To treat its complexities with the same lens as another nation is to deny its material reality. The CPP-NPA, born of a split from the original Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP-1930), represents a divergence from Marxist-Leninist principles. While the PKP-1930 remains active—albeit in quieter, more consistent ways—the CPP-NPA’s foundation rested not on the support of the proletariat but on petty-bourgeois adventurism. Its tactics, far from fostering genuine revolutionary struggle, have contributed to the stigmatization of communism as “terrorism” in the Filipino consciousness—a perception that persists to this day.
It is astonishing that many Western communists overlook the PKP-1930, the official and historically grounded Marxist-Leninist party of the Philippines, in favour of the CPP-NPA’s populist demagoguery. This oversight reveals either a lack of study or a wellful ignorance of the CPP-NPA’s opportunistic practices. To criticize the CPP-NPA is not to undermine the revolutionary potential of the Filipino masses but to defend the integrity of Marxist-Leninist principles against those who would misuse them.
Why is this critique essential?
Because deviations from correct Marxist-Leninist praxis undermine the revolutionary project and give rise to opportunists who exploit the movement for personal gain. The CPP-NPA’s so-called “revolutionary tax” is extortion by another name, and its methods—kidnapping, extortion, and violence—stand in stark contradiction to the principles of Mao’s Protracted People’s War. These are not baseless accusations; they are documented realities, attested to by rural Filipinos and defectors from the NPA who have exposed its internal contradictions and moral failings.
This article seeks to challenge the romanticized narratives surrounding the CPP-NPA, urging comrades to adopt a more critical, dialectical approach. Romanticism is undialectical and anti-Marxist. To understand and support the struggles of the Filipino proletariat, we must first seek truth from facts, shed dogmatic illusions, and embrace the scientific rigor that Marxism-Leninism demands. Let this serve as an introduction to a broader discussion—a call to comrades to engage with the complexities of Philippine history and politics with the seriousness they deserve. Only through such efforts can we build solidarity rooted in truth and principled action.
Origins of the CPP-NPA-NDF
The post-World War II era in the Philippines was marked by the resurgence of American imperialist domination, which sought to reassert its grip over the nation following the expulsion of Japanese occupation forces. In this context, the Hukbalahap (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon), initially organized as a guerrilla force to combat Japanese invaders, evolved into a revolutionary vanguard aimed at achieving true national liberation and expelling American colonial influence. This transition, however, was fraught with challenges and contradictions that laid bare the complexities of revolutionary struggle in a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society.
William Pomeroy, an active member of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) during this tumultuous period, provides an incisive critique of the Huk movement's failures in his seminal work, Guerrilla Warfare and Marxism. He outlines the errors of estimation, tactical missteps, and overconfidence that culminated in the movement’s isolation and eventual decline:
1. Overestimation of the Revolutionary Situation: The PKP leadership misjudged the conditions in 1950, declaring a revolutionary crisis that did not exist. The party erroneously concluded that the imperialist regime was in terminal decline and that the Filipino masses were ready to rise en masse. In reality, American imperialism retained significant room for maneuver, bolstered by promises of reforms that temporarily pacified sections of the population.
2. Neglect of the United Front: The focus on armed struggle led to the abandonment of critical legal and mass-based struggles. This isolated the movement from potential allies, including the nationalist bourgeoisie, whose support was crucial in confronting imperialism. The PKP's failure to build a robust united front against imperialism and its strategic blunder in boycotting the 1951 elections further alienated broad segments of the population.
3. Lapses in Security: A catastrophic blow was dealt in October 1950 when the Philippine intelligence services, with imperialist backing, captured the PKP’s entire secretariat and many leading cadres. The loss of vital documents and the dispersal of leadership left the movement disorganized and unable to recover its momentum.
4. International Isolation: The PKP faced the full brunt of American imperialism with minimal material or moral support from international anti-imperialist forces, leaving it vulnerable and isolated.
“It is important to ask and to answer the question as to why the Communist-led Huk struggle was defeated in the Philippines. The reasons lie for the most part in errors of estimate and of tactics made by the movement:
(1) In estimating that a revolutionary situation existed in 1950, the party was incorrect in concluding that the imperialists and their allies were in an irrecoverable situation and that they ‘could no longer rule in the old way.’ The party erred in thinking that the Filipino people in general at that time ‘could no longer endure the old rule.’ In truth, the imperialists had a wide range of maneuver (it was not found necessary, for instance, as in Korea and in South Vietnam, for the American troops based in the Philippines to be put into the field against the Huks), and the people were susceptible to promises of ‘reform.’
(2) Once a revolutionary situation was declared, the party put almost all emphasis and cadres into the armed struggle, to the neglect of legal forms of struggle and to the neglect of allies unprepared for this sharpest of struggles. Proclaiming the principle of ‘the hegemony of the party over the revolution,’ the party failed to project and to build a united front against imperialism and to find the forms of struggle by which broader masses of the people could have been drawn into action. In the election of 1951, which prepared the way for Magsaysay to come to power, the movement declared a boycott of the election (to which the people did not respond) and turned the edge of the armed struggle against both major parties in disregard of alliances possible at all levels. The nationalist bourgeoisie was frightened and antagonized, and allied itself in 1951 and in 1953 with the rabid pro-imperialist and anti-Huk, Magsaysay. The Huk movement gradually became isolated from allies among other nationalist forces that continued in their own way to resist the neo-colonial encroachments of American imperialism.
(3) Having become over-confident in 1950, the party became careless in its security measures. The price for this was the arrest on October 1950, in the city of Manila, by the imperialist-directed Philippine intelligence agencies, of the entire party secretariat and of many other top-ranking cadres. Complete files of party documents and correspondence were captured in these raids which fully exposed the organizational and tactical preparations of the movement. With remaining leading cadres scattered on expansion assignments and unable for months to convene to reestablish a directing organ for the struggle, this blow resulted in dislocation and in loss of initiative, which was never recovered.
(4) The Philippine national liberation struggle was, in addition, physically isolated from international allies, and had to face imperialist intervention with virtually no support from anti-imperialist forces abroad. Throughout this period the Communist Party of the Philippines conducted itself in the most heroic manner. Thousands of its cadres and members died fighting in the fields, the forests, the swamps and the streets of cities. Of the original nine members of the Political Bureau of the party in 1950, all were either killed or captured. The entire Central Committee of the party in the same period were either killed or have suffered imprisonment, with many still in prison after 15 years with the most extreme sentences. Nevertheless, the Communist Party, firmly rooted in the Luzon peasantry and in sectors of the industrial workers, was not destroyed and has succeeded in rebuilding its organization. After 1956 a tactical shift was made from armed struggle to forms of underground and legal struggle.”
“Guerrilla Warfare and Marxism” (1968), William J. Pomeroy
Despite these setbacks, the PKP demonstrated remarkable resilience. Thousands of cadres sacrificed their lives in the struggle, and even under severe repression, the party maintained its roots among the Luzon peasantry and the industrial proletariat. By the early 1960s, the PKP shifted its strategy, emphasizing underground and legal forms of struggle. The rebuilding process included the reestablishment of mass organizations like the Lapiang Manggagawa (Workers’ Party) and Kabataang Makabayan (Patriotic Youth), which became vital platforms for advancing revolutionary work.
“By the early 1960s, the PKP had to be rebuilt, and had to shift from the underground armed struggle to an open political path of struggle. Party rebuilding was done alongside the rebuilding of legal mass organizations — — the Lapiang Manggagawa (Workers’ Party), the Malayang Samahang Magsasaka (MASAKA, or the Free Association of Peasants), the Congress of Trade Unions of the Philippines (CTUP), the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), the Kabataang Makabayan (Patriotic Youth), and the multi-sectoral Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN).”
“A Short History Of The PARTIDO KOMUNISTA NG PILIPINAS”, PKP-1930
The mid-1960s witnessed a splintering of the PKP, driven by ideological deviations spearheaded by Jose Maria Sison. Drawing inspiration from Mao Zedong's “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” and the reactionary adventurism of the Red Guards, Sison fostered a breakaway faction, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Established in 1968, the CPP espoused a radical but misguided path of armed struggle, embodied in the formation of its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).
“However, the rebuilding of the party and its mass organizations was hampered by the rise of maoism in 1966. Under the influence of the so-called “great proletarian cultural revolution” in China, a youth-based maoist group was nurtured within the PKP by Jose Maria Sison, then a member of the party’s political bureau. Sison wanted to continue with an adventurist armed struggle on the basis of Mao’s “world revolutionary situation” thesis, while the veterans who comprised the majority of the party leaders were convinced that there was no revolutionary situation in the country, and that the armed struggle was then already a futile road to gaining political power in the Philippines. Sison and his maoist cohorts were expelled from the party in April 1967.”
“A Short History Of The PARTIDO KOMUNISTA NG PILIPINAS”, PKP-1930
The CPP-NPA’s strategy was rooted in revolutionary adventurism, a deviation that prioritized immediate armed confrontation over careful mass work and alliance-building. This adventurism mirrored the errors of the Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia and the Shining Path in Peru—movements that abandoned the principles of Marxism-Leninism in favour of opportunistic and destructive tactics. In pursuit of an artificially induced “revolutionary situation,” the CPP-NPA engaged in acts of terror, such as the 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, which targeted a political rally and killed civilians. Sison’s strategy, as later revealed, was to provoke state repression to radicalize moderates and bolster NPA ranks. This approach not only failed to galvanize the masses but also discredited communism in the eyes of the Filipino people, enabling the Marcos regime to justify martial law under the guise of combating insurgency.
“On Mao’s birthday (December 26) in 1968, Sison and 10 of his followers held a ‘congress’ in Alaminos, Pangasinan, to form the maoist ‘Communist Party of the Philippines’ (CPP). The formation of the CPP, and later of its ‘New People’s Army’ (NPA), had the covert material support not only of maoist China, but also of then-Senator Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino and media magnate Don Chino Roces, both known agents of the US Central Intelligence Agency.
Among the major actions of the CPP-NPA to ‘accelerate’ the supposed “revolutionary situation” was the terrorist bombing of the electoral campaign rally in Manila of the bourgeois oppositionist Liberal Party on August 21, 1971. That terrorist bombing, which killed 8 and wounded over 100, was used by the Ferdinand Marcos regime to justify the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
The then NPA head, Victor Corpus, later revealed that Sison ordered the bombing to force the government to institute more repressive measures, on the diabolical theory that more repression would force more moderate oppositionists to go underground and join then very limited NPA ranks. Thousands of recruits were needed to handle the thousands of high-powered rifles and grenade launchers in military assistance that Sison was then arranging from maoist China.
The PKP and its mass organizations opposed the drift towards martial law, while the maoists practically taunted the government into declaring martial law, claiming that such will be met with their ‘people’s war’. Other terrorist actions by the CPP-NPA, including bombings on civilian facilities in Metropolitan Manila, plus the July 1972 landing of thousands of armalite rifles and their ammunition at Digoyo Point, Palanan, Isabela, aboard the M/V ‘Karagatan’ which came from maoist China, led to Marcos’ declaration of martial law in September 1972.”
“A Short History Of The PARTIDO KOMUNISTA NG PILIPINAS”, PKP-1930
The PKP’s experience underscores the necessity of adhering to Marxist-Leninist principles, particularly the Mass Line, which prioritizes the needs and consciousness of the people over the adventurist ambitions of a vanguard detached from the masses. As Lenin admonished in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, revolutionary work must be grounded in patient, methodical organization that aligns with the actual conditions and aspirations of the people.
“If you want to help the ‘masses’ and win the sympathy and support of the ‘masses,’ you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the ‘leaders,’ but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.”
Lenin, “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder” (1920)
Mao’s writings further emphasize the importance of linking oneself with the masses, listening to their demands, and building struggle organically rather than imposing artificial crises.
“Twenty-four years of experience tell us that the right task, policy and style of work invariably conform with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably strengthen our ties with the masses, and the wrong task, policy and style of work invariably disagree with the demands of the masses at a given time and place and invariably alienate us from the masses. The reason why such evils as dogmatism, empiricism, commandism, tailism, sectarianism, bureaucracy and an arrogant attitude in work are definitely harmful and intolerable, and why anyone suffering from these maladies must overcome them, is that they alienate us from the masses.
Mao ZeDong “On Coalition Government” (April 24, 1945)
“To link oneself with the masses, one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise we shall isolate ourselves from the masses. Unless they are conscious and willing, any kind of work that requires their participation will turn out to be a mere formality and will fail…. There are two principles here: one is the actual needs of the masses rather than what we fancy they need, and the other is the wishes of the masses, who must make up their own minds instead of our making up their minds for them.
Mao ZeDong “The United Front in Cultural Work” (October 30, 1944)
The CPP-NPA’s divergence from these principles has not brought the Philippines closer to liberation. Instead, it has entrenched divisions, isolated the revolutionary movement, and tarnished the legacy of communism in the Philippines. For the contemporary Marxist-Leninist, the lessons of the PKP and the CPP-NPA are clear: true revolutionaries must remain steadfast in their commitment to scientific socialism, avoid the pitfalls of dogmatism and adventurism, and always anchor their work in the material realities and aspirations of the masses.
Who are the NDF?
The National Democratic Front (NDF) presents itself as a coalition of progressive organizations in the Philippines, ostensibly uniting trade unions, youth organizations, political parties, and resistance groups under a common banner of national and democratic aspirations. However, a closer Marxist-Leninist analysis reveals the NDF as a construct, not of the masses, but as a political instrument engineered by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA). Far from being an independent expression of proletarian or popular will, the NDF functions as a "legal front" to advance the interests of the CPP-NPA, employing tactics that undermine the principles of genuine mass-based revolutionary struggle.
Unlike organic formations rooted in the struggles and demands of the masses, the institutions comprising the NDF were created or co-opted by the CPP-NPA to serve its broader agenda. These organizations are not independent actors but extensions of the CPP’s ideological and operational control. The NDF acts as the CPP-NPA's diplomatic arm, legitimizing its presence within the political system while facilitating activities such as extortion, corruption, and propaganda dissemination. Its overseas cells play a critical role in crafting narratives that romanticize the CPP-NPA, particularly among Western leftist circles, where the NDF is portrayed as a heroic resistance force. This deliberate obfuscation masks its exploitative and counterrevolutionary practices.
The NDF cannot be analysed in isolation from its parent organs, the CPP and the NPA. Without the CPP’s ideological leadership and the NPA’s armed activities, the NDF would lose its purpose and coherence. This interdependence is central to its role as a facilitator of the broader strategy of “protracted people’s war,” a strategy that has largely failed to resonate with the Filipino masses. Instead, it has led to the isolation of the revolutionary movement and a tarnishing of communism’s legacy in the Philippines.
Critics of the Philippine government often allege that the identification of individuals and organizations as affiliates of the CPP-NPA-NDF constitutes "red-tagging," a practice they claim endangers lives and curtails civil liberties. However, the Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that labelling a group as a communist front does not inherently violate constitutional rights. Former President Rodrigo Duterte succinctly clarified the government’s position: "We are not red-tagging; we are identifying." This distinction is critical, as it separates baseless accusations from evidence-based assertions of affiliation.
While accusations of "red-tagging" dominate the discourse, what is often overlooked is the necessity of distinguishing truth from propaganda. When individuals or organizations are exposed as part of the CPP-NPA-NDF machinery, it is not an arbitrary label, but an identification based on evidence. A more fitting term for this process would be "truth-tagging," as it reveals the connections between these groups and the subversive activities they undertake under the guise of progressive struggle.
The NDF leverages its position within the legal framework to exert influence over political processes, often resorting to bribery and extortion to further its aims. This subversive approach extends to its participation in elections, where it acts as a proxy for the CPP-NPA, shaping policies and decisions that align with its interests. Far from empowering the Filipino people, these actions perpetuate a cycle of corruption and exploitation that undermines genuine revolutionary progress.
True Marxist-Leninist praxis demands that revolutionary organizations emerge organically from the masses, rooted in their concrete struggles and aspirations. The NDF, however, represents a deviation from this principle. By prioritizing the interests of the CPP-NPA over the broader proletarian movement, the NDF has alienated itself from the masses and compromised its legitimacy as a revolutionary force.
As Lenin and Mao emphasized, the success of any revolutionary movement depends on its ability to serve and mobilize the masses. The NDF’s top-down, conspiratorial approach stands in stark contrast to this ideal. Rather than fostering unity and empowerment, it has sown division and distrust, hindering the broader struggle for national liberation and socialism.
The National Democratic Front, as it exists today, is a cautionary tale of how revolutionary movements can lose their way when they prioritize the interests of a vanguard over the needs of the people. For genuine Marxist-Leninists, the task is clear: reject the opportunism and adventurism of the CPP-NPA-NDF and build a truly mass-based movement that embodies the principles of scientific socialism and the unwavering commitment to serve the people. Only through this path can the revolutionary struggle in the Philippines regain its integrity and potential.
Defectors Reveal the Criminal Reality
In March 2022, former members of the CPP-NPA-NDF came forward, risking their lives and the safety of their families to expose the organization's inner workings. Their testimonies shed light on the systematic exploitation, deception, and criminal activities that have long plagued the Filipino revolutionary movement. This brave act of defection offers an unprecedented glimpse into the operations of what they described as one of the most prolific and organized criminal syndicates in modern history.
As former rebel "Ka Erik" explained, the ultimate proof of their authenticity lies not in documents or papers but in the risks they take. "Putting our lives on the line is more than proof enough," he asserted, underscoring that no individual would willingly endanger their family’s safety to fabricate accusations against a dangerous entity like the CPP-NPA-NDF. Their lived experiences—echoed by countless other defectors—are a damning indictment of the organization’s exploitative practices.
Ka Erik likened the CPP-NPA-NDF to a criminal syndicate, highlighting its lack of accountability, particularly in financial dealings and extortion activities. "The main receipt is how thousands of young people like us, recruited under the same deceptive patterns, have returned with the same tragic stories," he stated. These patterns are not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate recruitment and indoctrination strategy targeting vulnerable populations, including the youth and marginalized communities.
Beyond personal accounts, former rebels like "Jade" provided material evidence to substantiate their claims, including surrendered weapons, flags, and documents linking the CPP-NPA-NDF to its legal fronts, such as the Kabataan Partylist. Jade’s testimony directly implicated political actors, exposing how organizations like Kabataan serve as pipelines for recruitment and propaganda, blurring the lines between activism and insurgency.
Ka Erik reinforced the validity of these claims by outlining the three categories of evidence admissible in public opinion and legal proceedings:
Direct Testimonial Evidence: Based on personal experiences, as presented by defectors.
Correlation of Circumstantial and Objective Events: Revealing consistent patterns of recruitment, indoctrination, and operations.
Documentary and Material Evidence: Including seized items and organizational records.
This triad of evidence forms a compelling case against the CPP-NPA-NDF, demonstrating its insidious role in perpetuating violence and exploitation under the guise of revolutionary struggle. When asked why the NPA continues to exist, despite significant defections and government crackdowns, both Ka Erik and Usec Lorraine identified two primary factors:
Ongoing Recruitment and Manipulation: The CPP-NPA-NDF preys on the frustrations and vulnerabilities of the poor, blackmailing and deceiving individuals to maintain their ranks. Groups like KABAG and allied organizations perpetuate the cycle, ensuring a steady stream of new recruits.
Systemic Failures in Governance: For over five decades, successive administrations have failed to address the structural issues enabling the CPP-NPA-NDF’s influence, such as inadequate education, local government enforcement, and public awareness campaigns.
As Ka Erik pointed out, the NPA’s persistence is not solely due to poverty—otherwise, countries with similar or worse socio-economic conditions would also harbour insurgencies. The critical factor is the presence of a dedicated organization like the CPP-NPA-NDF, which actively exploits systemic weaknesses to manipulate and mobilize discontented populations.
The revelations also implicate political actors who, through negligence or complicity, have enabled the CPP-NPA-NDF’s continued operations. Ka Erik criticized public officials, including Vice President Leni Robredo, for failing to exercise due diligence in their interactions with groups linked to the CPP-NPA-NDF. He argued that negligence of this nature, whether intentional or not, compromises national security and jeopardizes public safety.
"Common sense dictates that leaders in high office should consult security and intelligence agencies before engaging with organizations known for their subversive activities," he remarked. This lack of caution not only emboldens the CPP-NPA-NDF but also undermines efforts to dismantle its networks. The testimonies of former rebels highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive and unified strategy to dismantle the CPP-NPA-NDF and address the conditions that fuel its recruitment. This includes:
Strengthening Public Awareness: Disseminating the truth about the CPP-NPA-NDF’s activities to counteract its propaganda and romanticized image.
Reforming Local Governance: Equipping local officials, educators, and law enforcement with the tools to prevent recruitment and infiltration.
Holding Politicians Accountable: Ensuring that public officials exercise due diligence and prioritize national security over political alliances.
As Mary Jane, another former rebel, poignantly stated, "If we continue our exposure, we can reach more people. If we share our story and stand firm, the NPA will be gone." This unwavering commitment to truth and justice, even in the face of threats and legal challenges, exemplifies the resilience and determination needed to overcome the CPP-NPA-NDF’s decades-long reign of terror.
TRANSLATED TRANSCRIPT:
Lawrence: Do we have any other proof to say or to show to the public to prove to the public that you are a legitimate member of NPA? Just to be a credibility.
Ka Erik: The proof is our lives, we are not going to take risk of our family, life, and safety if we are lying because we knew that we’re getting killed. “Putting our life on the line is more than proof enough than may papers, than any document” So our life is more important, our wife’s, our children. So what is the cause to put our life in danger if do not have basis and what we say is not true. Secondly, that’s what death always says, urban operators, and infiltrators of CPP. We do not have syndicate papers. Its true! When did we have a syndicate document? The CPP-NPA-NDF is like a criminal syndicate. The biggest highly organised prolific criminal operators that who’ll come before the face of the Earth, the prolific extortionist, therefore there is no receipt. The main receipt is how did we come with thousands of young people like us who came back? The same circumstances, the same pattern of recruitment, and the same pattern of personal direct experiences the connect and result? That this is not a comic but true story of life experiences. Thank you for that question.
Lawrence: Thank you sir.
Ka Erik: There is Mary Jane, there is Jade.
Jade: Actually Lawrence, Ka Erik is right that we our selves is the witness that we are came from our group or become NPA. Even me, I have evidence that I become NPA why? Because I surrender a weapon, I surrender the flag of NPA itself, and I surrender documents where the list of the member of the Cadre, and I myself have and can prove that the KABATAAN PARTYLIST have connection to CPP-NPA because I became an organiser of KABATAAN PARTY LIST and we have a picture with SARA ILAGO with our fists up and I have picture and personal ID of KABATAAN PARTYLIST where I am an organiser of Catbalogan City and whole Samar. So, that it will prove, the evidence that our government have.
Ka Erik: To end this once and for all, there is a Prosecutor and Attorneys watching us. There are three categories in forms of evidences that can be admissible in any prosecution even in public opinion or in a court trial. Number one, direct testimonial evidence based on personal experience, that’s us. Second, correlation and preponderance of circumstantial and objective actual events. And number three, documentary and other material evidence. So, two out of three, is that not fair? So if material evidence, we also have. So there is Attorneys at the back that can prove my testimony or I just pulled it up on a guava tree.
Lawrence: Thank you sir. So for the panel of Badoy particularly on USEC Badoy, how can you say that there is no Red tagging if NTF-Elcac are hundred percent sure that who they call NPA are NPA’s? who we call NPA? For example, let’s say we call a group NPA but the members below them. They say that not all of them is members, I thinks thats what RED-TAGGING is for. Could you please apply it for that USEC.
Usec Lorraine: Hello, Lawrence. First of all there is no crime of red tagging, our supreme court said, a even quote, a set of faithful quote but for Sarate versus Aquino. There’s no such, there is no danger to life, liberty and security when it identified a member of the CPP-NPA-NDF. So if I understand you right, you’re asking me if i’m sure when I name CPP-NPA-NDF a person or a organisation a hundred percent because the National task force Elcac is composed of 12 clusters, the whole government is there and that include firstly it lead by the President of the Republic of the Philippines with intelligence reforce who has said the same thing. Secondly, we are with the intelligence and security cluster where they have the Lica, national intelligence coordinating agency, DOJ, AFP, PNP, and NBI where we also have many alliance now. Very powerful personal testimony. So to answer your question are we sure? yes! We are hundred percent sure. A hundred percent sure.
Lawrence: Thank you USEC, a follow up question. In spite of all the information and evidences, why is there still NPA nowadays?
Usec Lorraine: There still NPA?
KA Erik: Why there still NPA?
Usec Lorraine: Okay, because-
Ka Erik: You can share your thoughts Usec Lauraine and the I’ll give too to all mine.
Usec Lorraine: Okay, so why there is still NPA? There still NPA but many of them surrenders, 24 thousand surrenders, so they falling down fast. Why there still NPA? Because they can still fool many people and they also blackmailing many people like Jong Monson and Chad Booc who wants to surrender, but fooled to not surrender because they will get killed. And they still used by kabag, anak pawis, bayan muna, ACT, and gabriela. Our children this days of election, they are the one who puts tarpaulin of Neri Colmenares, kabag right? They were still used continuously and after the election, we are sure they will recruit our children as new NPA. That is one of the reason why there is still the NPA, because there is still KABAG and there is CPP-NPA-NDF. When the CPP-NPA-NDF is gone and KABAG is gone, there is no NPA, that’s all.
Mary Jane: Join there with Usec Badoy, she was right. If there is still KABAG, the CPP-NPA will continuously lead them and when there is still politicians that has been fooled and allowing them to be used by dual tactic of the CPP-NPA-NDF then there will always have NPA but if we continue our exposure. To all the people right here now, if we share our video we can reach more and to our continuous share, i’m sure that the NPA will be gone. That is why were not going to retreat even if they file many cases. I told to Jade yesterday “Even if we get jail or jailed us because we know that we tell the truth. So if they take us to technical, if we need to get jailed we are ready right? But we will challenge them, I will challenge this politicians, this KABAG. Let’s not go to court because there is technicalities there, let’s go to lie detector test. Let’s have lie detector test, we all know that were sure that technology will know who’s telling the truth.
Ka Erik: We will end this Lawrence, the other side said that there will always NPA if there is poverty, that is also what’s raw communist Ka Leody De Guzman said. That’s not true! Because if that is true Lawrence, comrades, there should be too in Somalia, in Roanda, in Bangladesh, and all the poor country. Why there is no NPA there? Because no one recruits there, no communist country that organising, no one motivates them and no communist party movement made to motivate the country people. Therefore the reason, there is still NPA because not only the structural defects are not the only source of the variables for recruitment, there is a dedicated organisation like CPP-NPA-NDF whose purpose is to motivate the people. That is the failure of the government because for the last 53 years, they did not prevent the recruitment process because it is not exposed and did not capacitate of the law enforcement capability. The DEPED, CHED, and the local governments to automatically prevent the recruiters, agitators, organisers like us that is why we got to the top.
Lawrence: I think its the last-
Usec Lorraine: Lawrence can I add? So, it includes the national task force and our responsibility is to show to people why it took 53 years. Not only CPP because the politicians with no principles are conspiring with them, so it don’t have political aim, we are not campaigning like them, like the former rebels we want to stop our children that crying to death. This is beyond politics, were finished with that, not us, we don’t campaigning for a candidate but its clear to the task force that we have to finish this because our child is crying to death, the indigenous people are their target and the poorest of the poor.
Lawrence: Thank you Usec. I think its last one I need to chase it. It’s about politics since you mention it earlier. I will make it one, what is the meaning if the NPA support a candidate? It’s candidacy and why they support VP Leni or is it possible because you said earlier that VP Leni knows about it, is it possible that only a staff of VP Leni is the one they talking to NPA and she really knows nothing? Thank you.
Ka Erik: In major decisions the principal make or makes the final decisions. So if there’s a liaising or network negotiation or process of evaluation and negotiations, the final says will come from the principal, in that case the principal is Leni Robredo. Number two, if she didn’t know directly at least come to know, that’s called due diligence, prudence, and propriety reduce to two terms “Common sense” because public knowledge that these groups are exposing and revealing within 2 to 3 years and there is NTF-Elcac out of due diligence and prudence which should be inconvenient upon her as the second highest position on the land. She could have talked to the NTF-Elcac, the security advisers, Secretary Esperon, DGNKAMUNTIANGUDO or DIKA or even to the armed forces and the PNP to the intelligence forces before she makes a decision because this information that we’re telling is almost 3 years revealed and its called negligence. So negligence out of political interest to gain votes, that’s dangerous because you’re sacrificing the national security interest with or without elections, whoever occupied the government position including the mayor from Baguio City should exercise due diligence, prudence and propriety when it comes to a dangerous group who have dangerous history to motive, incitement, manipulation, and any other way. Even a general can be deceived by this kind of tactics if he will not listen to the true story and scenario that we experienced, I think that is the missed out points of Mayor Benjie Magalon of Baguio City. He said that red tagging tarpaulin and posters are prohibited. Mayor maybe you’re forgetting that there are two ways allowed for campaigning, campaign for and campaign against. We have the right to campaign against mayor. So if we are former rebel and kadre, Mayor Magalon or General Magalon are going to campaign against CPP-NPA-NDF party list, do we violate election rules? No! Under the COMELEC rules, that is entirely within the campaign for. Campaign for or campaign against, we are going to get there back when public official specially positions that requires exercise and practice of due diligence, propriety and prudence when it comes on alliance to CPP-NPA-NDF and they fail to do it with the kind, the decisions made by Leni Robredo and Mayor Benjie Magalon pertaining to the CPP-NPA-NDF urban infiltrators, then what is upstate is the public security and the national long term interest on national security against the local communist terrorism.
For true Marxist-Leninists, the CPP-NPA-NDF represents not a beacon of liberation but a fundamental betrayal of revolutionary principles. It has abandoned the dialectical relationship between the vanguard party and the masses, prioritizing its own survival and the narrow interests of a privileged leadership clique over the genuine emancipation of the Filipino people. What once aspired to be a revolutionary force has devolved into a reactionary organization, perpetuating division, exploitation, and adventurist violence that runs counter to the material needs and aspirations of the masses it claims to serve.
A Call for Revolutionary Integrity
Western Marxist-Leninist-Maoists (or Maoists) may denounce criticism of the CPP-NPA-NDF as “class betrayal,” but this is an act of deflection rather than self-criticism. They fail to recognize the CPP-NPA’s own abandonment of the Mass Line, the principle of grounding revolutionary action in the material conditions and consciousness of the people. Instead, the CPP-NPA has entrenched itself in opportunistic tactics and the cult of personality surrounding the Sison clique, severing its connection with the very people it purports to represent. This betrayal is not revealed by state propaganda but by the lived experiences of the Filipino masses themselves, I’ve seen these experiences myself and spoken with the people directly, who have grown resentful of a so-called "revolutionary party" that has brought them little more than fear, exploitation, and disillusionment.
The CPP-NPA’s reliance on acts of terror and unprincipled violence reveals its fundamental departure from revolutionary theory. Terrorism is not a revolutionary act; it is adventurism—a reckless and voluntarist approach that ignores the material conditions necessary for genuine revolution. Prolonging an armed struggle devoid of mass support is not revolutionary discipline but idealistic posturing, a refusal to confront the realities of its dwindling base and growing isolation from the people.
True revolutionaries understand that the success of a people’s movement depends on its ability to unite and mobilize the masses, not through fear or coercion but through the cultivation of class consciousness and collective action. The CPP-NPA’s actions, however, have alienated the very communities it seeks to liberate, substituting genuine engagement with a strategy of intimidation and opportunism. In doing so, it has become a caricature of revolutionary struggle—a self-serving entity disconnected from the material realities of Filipino society.
The path forward requires a courageous and uncompromising break with the errors of the CPP-NPA-NDF. Revolutionary Marxist-Leninists must expose the organization’s true nature, dismantle its structures of exploitation, and lay the foundation for a movement rooted in scientific socialism and the genuine aspirations of the Filipino people. This new movement must reject the egoism and adventurism of the past and instead embody the principles of revolutionary integrity:
Rebuilding the Mass Line: Revolutionaries must return to the people, listening to their grievances, understanding their material conditions, and aligning their struggle with the genuine interests of the masses. This means abandoning the elitist practices of the Sison clique and building a vanguard party that earns the trust and participation of the oppressed.
Rejecting Opportunism: The pursuit of personal or factional power must be replaced with a commitment to the collective liberation of all exploited classes. Opportunistic alliances and adventurist tactics must give way to principled struggle and strategic engagement with the realities of Filipino society.
Grounding the Struggle in Material Realities: Idealistic posturing and hollow rhetoric must be replaced with a grounded analysis of the contradictions within Filipino society. Revolutionary action must be informed by a scientific understanding of these contradictions and a disciplined approach to resolving them in favour of the working class and peasantry.
The Filipino masses have spoken—not through the words of state propagandists but through their own lived experiences, which again I’ve seen these experiences myself and spoken with the people directly. They have rejected a party that preaches revolution but practices coercion, that claims to serve the people while exploiting them for its own survival. Revolution is not a tool for terror but a process of empowerment, a disciplined and principled effort to dismantle the structures of oppression and build a new society grounded in justice, equality, and solidarity.
As Marxist-Leninists, it is our duty to expose adventurism masquerading as revolution, to rebuild the revolutionary movement in the Philippines, and to restore the faith of the masses in the transformative power of collective action. In doing so, we honour the principles of scientific socialism and take a step closer to the true liberation of the Filipino people.
A Parasite Upon the Revolutionary Spirit!
Where does one begin with the colossal harm the CPP-NPA-NDF has inflicted upon the social fabric and economic development of the Philippines? This organization has not only failed to fulfil its revolutionary mandate but has actively betrayed it, becoming a parasite feeding off the lifeblood of the very masses it claims to serve. Its survival is not a testament to popular will but to its exploitation of external funding sources, illicit activities, and the manipulation of vulnerable populations. This so-called vanguard party has devolved into an opportunistic machine of self-preservation, a disgrace to the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Financial Machinations
The CPP-NPA’s financial machinations are as staggering as they are reprehensible. Intelligence estimates reveal that it has amassed a fortune of 5.8 billion pesos—equivalent to £85 million or $104 million USD—through “revolutionary taxes” extorted from businesses and farmers, as well as funding siphoned from NGOs and sympathetic organizations abroad. This immense wealth, far from advancing revolutionary struggle, has been funnelled into the lavish lifestyles of its leadership, particularly Jose Maria Sison, who resided comfortably in Europe till his death.
Under the guise of “international solidarity,” the CPP-NPA has exploited Sison’s connections with European NGOs and socialist parties, diverting funds intended for humanitarian projects into their guerrilla operations. A glaring example is the diversion of 620,000 euros (roughly ₱31 million) earmarked for a Bukidnon-based NGO’s “Healing the Hurt” program, which instead ended up supporting guerrilla bases. This cynical manipulation of international solidarity is not just opportunistic—it is a betrayal of the global socialist movement.
Exploitation of Children
Perhaps the most egregious crime committed by the CPP-NPA is its systematic exploitation of children. Reports abound of youths kidnapped, indoctrinated, and thrust into combat roles, transforming them into expendable tools for the organization’s failing insurgency. This is no mere propaganda; it is a documented pattern of abuse that stands as an indictment of the CPP-NPA’s moral bankruptcy.
As detailed by Merliza Makinano in Child Soldiers in the Philippines, children within the NPA serve as combatants, spies, messengers, and logistical support. Some, as young as 14, have been placed in command positions or on the frontlines. Others act as human shields or scavengers, recovering weapons from the bodies of fallen soldiers. These children, drawn into the conflict through deception, coercion, or abduction, endure unimaginable physical and psychological trauma.
The consequences of this exploitation are devastating. Many children suffer permanent injuries, mental health issues, and a loss of educational opportunities. Families are torn apart, communities destabilized, and the hope of a brighter future for the youth is extinguished. By using children as instruments of war, the CPP-NPA commits a heinous war crime, violating not only international law but the fundamental principles of human dignity and revolutionary ethics.
“Although they encourage the children’s participation in the struggle, the CCP says that ‘those of tender age’ are not to perform combat or military duties. Those below 18 are not allowed to take in medical teams and non-combat operations. This is because the movement says they observe international laws and Conventions that prohibit the recruitment of children below 15 years of age as combatants. Also, the NDF, the political arm of NPA, admits the continuation of recruitment of 15-year-olds but insist that they will only be fielded to combat when they reach 18. However, newspaper reports cite various instances where the children are used for combat. Children in the NPA serve various capacities: as officer (liaison officer, commanding officer, squadron leader, platoon leader, etc.), a combatant, or in support capacity (cook, messenger, spy, etc.). In Bicol, a journalist met a 14-year old NPA platoon leader. A 16-year old, Rolly heads a ‘Sparrow’ unit, the liquidation squad of the NPA. In addition, the Human Rights Task Force in Surigao that investigated the massacre of some 49 soldiers by the NPA comrades alleged that children aged 15 and above were active participants. In the battlefield, the NPA use the children as shields to deter military attacks. They also act as ‘scavengers’ or those who recover weapons from dead soldiers in the battlefield. For example, in the late 1980s, a 12-year old child carrying a sack of rifle grenades was captured by the military. In local areas, the NPA use the children in a courier system known as ‘Pasa Bilis’ (literally Pass Fast). The children are given pieces of paper with scribbled messages and orders. The children then run to the nest really station, where another child runs to the next post until the message has reached its destination. Although a supportive role,it can get dangerous as the children get caught in the crossfire. They are also used to collect ‘revolutionary taxes’ in the village. In addition, there are reports of children guarding camps. In February 2000, Brigadier General Victor Obillo and Army captain Eduardo Montealto while being held hostage by the NPA, claimed that 40 percent of their 140 NPA guards were minors between ages of 14 and 17. The NPA asserts its adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law. It amended Point 1 of Principle III to limit combatants or membership in the fighting unit of the NPA to those ‘who are at least 18 years of age and is physically and mentally fit …’ Children not below 15 years of age ‘may be admitted as a trainee or apprentice in the NPA and may be assigned to self-defence, militia and other non-combatant units and tasks.’ NPA spokesperson Jorge Madlos also announced that they would no longer recruit children. Further, in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Human Rights Law, the Philippine Government and the NDF agreed to: ‘provide special attention to women and children and to ensure their physical and moral integrity’ and ‘children shall not be allowed to take part in hostilities.’ Yet, while it purports to have a policy of non-recruitment of children below 18 years of age as regular members or combatants, child soldiers are still found in the ranks. Those who were already recruited before also remain actual combatants. In addition, children involved in supposedly medical and non-combat operations are still hazardous situations as in direct combat.
Due to their participation in the conflict, children generally end up with physical disabilities or dead, as well as experience psychological trauma (sleeplessness, illness), fear, illiteracy, and the destruction of their livelihood and property. In addition, children aged from 7 to 15 exposed to armed conflict suffer ‘multiple symptoms of mental disturbance and mental morbidity.’ Families and individuals are also affected psychologically given their feeling of ‘lack of sense of control and responsibility’ over their lives. There are also documented cases of children undergoing torture and detention on suspicion of being combatants. Of the documented cases of torture from 1976 to 1995, 326 out of the 415 victims or 79 percent were 15 to 18 years of age. They were suspected combatants of the NPA and supporters/sympathizers of the CPP. Of these torture victims, 85% were males, while 15% are females. At the time of their arrest or detention, children were agricultural workers, either as farmhands (61% or 250 cases) or farmers (17% or 70 cases). Fifteen percent (60) of the children were enrolled in schools. The infantry units of the military and paramilitary forces, the Civilian Home Defense Unit and the Lost Command, allegedly torture children. They were reportedly tortured to obtain information, force a confession, incriminate others, take revenge, sow fear in the community, and destroy a personality. This is done through interrogation, threats and harassments to arrest and detention, manhandling, being inflicted with physical pain,rap and indiscriminate firing. Children experiencing torture suffer physical and psychological consequences. The physical effects are pain and injury, scars, permanent damage to bodily movements or functions, and deterioration of health. On the other hand, the psychological effects are fear and anxiety, helplessness and apathy, sudden changes in behaviour and difficulties in social interaction, learning difficulties, loss of self-esteem and other psychological consequences, including mental disorder. Children affected by conflict regard their predicament as the “work of older persons.” Being children, they do not possess the strength to end this and feel helpless and tired of the situation.”
“Child Soldiers in the Philippines”, Merliza Makinano
As Marxist-Leninists, we must unequivocally condemn the CPP-NPA for its betrayal of revolutionary principles. A true vanguard party educates and empowers the youth in a manner that is legal, ethical, and oriented toward their holistic development. It does not prey upon their vulnerabilities, manipulate their aspirations, or send them to their deaths in a futile insurgency.
The CPP-NPA’s actions are not just violations of human rights but betrayals of the very class it claims to champion. By extorting the masses, perpetuating violence, and exploiting children, it has alienated itself from the people and revealed its reactionary nature. Far from advancing the cause of socialism, it has become an obstacle to it, a force that undermines solidarity and discredits the revolutionary movement.
The task now is to expose the CPP-NPA for what it truly is: a parasitic organization that has betrayed the Filipino people and the global socialist movement. Revolutionaries must work to dismantle its exploitative structures, restore the dignity of the masses, and rebuild a movement grounded in the principles of Marxism-Leninism. This means:
Empowering the Youth: Education must be a tool for liberation, not exploitation. The youth must be equipped with the skills, knowledge, and consciousness to participate in the revolutionary struggle as empowered individuals, not as cannon fodder.
Ending Opportunism: The revolutionary movement must reject the predatory practices of the CPP-NPA, prioritizing transparency, accountability, and ethical engagement with both the masses and international allies.
Reconnecting with the Mass Line: The path forward must be grounded in the genuine needs and aspirations of the Filipino people. A revolutionary movement disconnected from the masses is not a movement at all—it is an instrument of oppression.
The CPP-NPA-NDF has become a case study in how not to lead a revolution. Its crimes against humanity and betrayals of revolutionary principles serve as a stark reminder of the importance of integrity, discipline, and a true commitment to the emancipation of the oppressed. Let us learn from its failures and recommit ourselves to building a revolutionary movement worthy of the name.
In the annals of revolutionary struggle, the line between the ideals of liberation and the failures of leadership often lies in the perversion of mass line principles. Revolutionary movements must, above all, stand as the collective expression of the people's aspirations, working with and for the masses. Yet, the stories we recount today illuminate a troubling divergence from these principles—a betrayal not merely of the individual recruits but of the very ethos of Marxist-Leninist praxis.
The accounts of Agnes Reano, Nancy Dologuin, and others reveal an organizational strategy that veered toward manipulation rather than genuine mass education. Reano’s recruitment as a 13-year-old by the Alliance of Students Against Tuition Fee Increases was presented as activism against a clear grievance: the commodification of education under capitalism. However, what began as legitimate dissent was co-opted into clandestine militarization, exploiting her youthful idealism. Her narrative of transition from a “legal front” to an armed combatant reflects a failure to align revolutionary methods with the developmental readiness of recruits and the consent of their communities.
This approach is antithetical to the mass line, which demands that revolutionary organizations synthesize the scattered grievances of the masses into collective demands and actions. Instead, we see an opportunistic use of ideological discussions on imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat capitalism as tools for indoctrination rather than education. Such methods alienate potential allies and undermine the revolutionary cause.
Equally troubling are the stories of Nancy Dologuin and “Allem,” whose personal vulnerabilities—trauma and familial struggles—were exploited to draw them into armed rebellion. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that a revolution must be an act of empowerment, elevating the consciousness and agency of the oppressed. Yet here, we witness a cynical appropriation of pain to serve organizational ends, perpetuating cycles of abuse rather than dismantling their systemic roots.
Dologuin’s disillusionment with the movement—manifested in her critique of the hierarchy, the erosion of spiritual values, and the exploitation of the masses—highlights another deviation from revolutionary principles. The disdain for rank-and-file struggles and the imposition of dogmatic atheism betrays the inclusivity and respect for the people's consciousness that are central to Marxist pedagogy.
The recruitment of minors like “Jack” and “Sonny Boy” starkly underscores the collapse of ethical leadership within these movements. While the participation of youth in revolutionary movements has historical precedent, it must always be rooted in their conscious choice and developmental readiness. The coercion of children into armed conflict, as described in these accounts, is a grotesque inversion of the revolutionary ethos. These practices reveal not the strength of the revolutionary movement but its desperation, exposing its inability to galvanize adult cadres in sufficient numbers.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of these groups is their internal perpetuation of patriarchal oppression. The testimonies of Arian Jane Ramos, Desiree Miranda, and others paint a horrifying picture of sexual violence and the systemic silencing of women. These abuses, perpetrated by those entrusted with revolutionary leadership, expose a profound hypocrisy. A movement that claims to dismantle the macho-feudal structures of society cannot tolerate such predatory behaviour within its ranks.
Lenin himself emphasized that a revolutionary movement must liberate women as part of its struggle for the liberation of all humanity. The stories of commanders abusing their positions to exploit women not only violate this principle but also corrode the trust and unity necessary for revolutionary success. The culture of impunity, rationalized under the guise of addressing "larger societal contradictions," serves only to alienate women from the movement and weaken its moral foundation.
The inability of these movements to address internal abuses, such as those highlighted by Ramos and Miranda, reflects a failure to implement a genuinely proletarian form of justice. Revolutionary justice is not merely about punishment but about ensuring accountability, transparency, and the moral integrity of the movement. The practice of covering up crimes committed by high-ranking officials corrodes the legitimacy of the organization and alienates its base.
These stories must serve as a cautionary tale and a call to return to the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism. Revolutionary movements must be rooted in the people, advancing their struggles in a manner that is ethical, transparent, and accountable. Recruitment must be based on education, not deception; leadership must embody service, not exploitation.
We must reject the bourgeois opportunism that prioritizes organizational survival over revolutionary integrity. Instead, let us commit to a revolution that is truly by, for, and of the people—a movement that embodies the ideals of collective liberation, standing as a beacon of hope and dignity for the oppressed.
Monopoly Over Revolution via Assassination
The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People’s Army (NPA), after the crisis of 1992, adopted a ruthless policy of eliminating what they considered "counterrevolutionaries" within their own ranks, as well as among other Leftist groups and organizations. This was not limited to their perceived political enemies; it extended to anyone who could be deemed a threat to the party’s ideological hegemony, including Party members, union leaders, activists, intellectuals, and other Left-leaning individuals or organizations that did not align with their vision of revolutionary purity.
Take, for instance, Filemon “Ka Popoy,” a former high-ranking member of the CPP-NPA. After he left the organization and openly criticized its anti-Marxist practices, he became a target. His assassination was not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of purges aimed at suppressing dissent within the revolutionary movement. The CPP-NPA-NDF, with its growing paranoia and authoritarian impulses, pursued a brutal assassination policy that affected thousands. These were not isolated “criminal” acts, but state-sanctioned executions of anyone who fell out of line or dared to critique the leadership.
This is not just an issue of personal betrayal but a glaring contradiction in the Marxist-Leninist principles they claim to uphold. For a party that advocates the overthrow of capitalist systems, they have turned their guns on those within the Left who stand for a pluralistic, democratic approach to revolution. The very same tactics of exclusion, violence, and betrayal that the CPP accuses the capitalist state of employing have been adopted as their own. The leadership, by labelling former allies as “counter-revolutionaries,” effectively placed them on death lists, which have been carried out mercilessly by the NPA. People who once stood side by side for common goals were executed without trial, often in front of their families, purely for having divergent opinions or for leaving the movement.
The figures are alarming. Since 1992, countless activists, union leaders, and political figures from other Left parties have been assassinated or forced into hiding. The complete scope of this purging policy is difficult to measure fully due to the culture of fear and secrecy that surrounds it. Many victims’ families dare not speak out for fear of retaliation. But we know from the accounts of survivors, relatives, and independent organizations like the First Quarter Storm Foundation, that at least 36 people have been directly targeted in these violent campaigns—killed by the very organization that claimed to represent the oppressed.
The victims of this internal war aren’t just individuals, they represent entire political movements. The CPP-NPA-NDF systematically eradicates the independent Left, including legal Left parties like Akbayan!, the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Philippines (MLPP), and others. These groups may not always agree with the CPP's tactics, but the ideology of the working class and the people’s struggle for freedom unites them. The CPP leadership's attempt to wipe them out through assassination is a dangerous and destructive path, one that prioritizes monopoly over revolution rather than revolutionary unity.
Moreover, this bloodshed is presented as justified in the name of Marxism-Leninism, when in fact it is an aberration, a distortion of the very essence of revolutionary struggle. Marxism-Leninism advocates for the liberation of the people through collective action, not through violence and fear-based rule. The death sentences handed down by the CPP leadership to former comrades, dissidents, or perceived “enemies” are politically motivated, often based on fabricated charges and without any form of due process.
Those who are branded as “counterrevolutionaries” are left in a state of permanent danger. Their lives are at the whim of a leadership that has embraced authoritarianism under the guise of revolution. The terms of "counter-revolutionary" or "criminal" are fluid, and once someone is placed on this list, their fate is sealed. They are targeted for assassination, without trial, without mercy. This system, which operates without any legal framework or regard for human dignity, reveals the true nature of the CPP’s authoritarian tendencies.
This policy of assassination creates a climate of fear and distrust within the Left movement, paralyzing it and preventing any real progress towards the people’s liberation. The divisions sown by the CPP-NPA-NDF not only harm those directly affected but also erode the credibility of the larger revolutionary struggle. By resorting to violence against its own comrades, the CPP risks discrediting the very cause it claims to serve. The reality is clear: the CPP-NPA-NDF’s policy of assassination undermines the collective struggle for socialism, replacing it with a brutal and dogmatic enforcement of ideological conformity.
For those of us who stand in solidarity with the oppressed, it is crucial to reject this violent, authoritarian path and reaffirm our commitment to a revolution rooted in the values of equality, democracy, and respect for human dignity. The Left must be a space for debate, for disagreement, and for the collective development of ideas—not a blood-soaked arena for purges. If we are to build a movement that serves the people, we must reject the policies of division, violence, and fear, and instead, advocate for unity, solidarity, and democratic principles within the revolutionary movement.
For detailed accounts of this here’s three articles, on this subject matter:
“After Kintanar, the killings continue. The post-1992 CPP assassination policy in the Philippines”, 4 July 2003.
“The post-1992 Communist Party of the Philippines and its policy of ‘death condemnations’. A response to the July 26, 2003 document of the National Democratic Front (based on CPP-NDF’s own statements and documents”, 6 October 2003.
“In solidarity with the Filipino progressive and revolutionary movements threatened by the CPP. A new Letter of Concern”, January 18, 2005.
Terrorism isn’t Revolutionary!
Let us now turn to the most blatant acts of terror carried out by the forces of the New People’s Army (NPA) and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). While not on the same scale as the horrific violence of the Shining Path in Peru, these attacks nonetheless wreaked havoc on both society and infrastructure, inflicting long-lasting damage on the very fabric of the Filipino people’s existence. As we’ve already seen in the "Origins" section, the Electoral Bombing at Plaza Miranda was not an isolated incident. It was but one part of a broader pattern of violence that has marred the movement's history.
The Inopacan massacre, for example, saw the skeletal remains of purge victims exhumed from a mass grave on August 28, 2006. These were not the actions of a force struggling for liberation, but of a violent and vengeful clique, targeting those within their ranks deemed insufficiently loyal. This grotesque behaviour, under the guise of revolutionary purity, continued with the DXRA massacre, where radio stations were attacked, and even though there were no immediate casualties, the intent was clear: to silence dissent and disrupt communication.
Similarly, the Godod ambush, where 46 individuals, including 39 Philippine soldiers, were killed in an NPA ambush, showcases the brutality of their campaign. But it wasn’t just soldiers who were victims—civilians were not spared either. The Rano massacre, in which 39 members of the United Church of Christ Congregation were killed during a church service, exposes the truly indiscriminate nature of the NPA’s violence. This, too, is the work of an organization that has long since abandoned any pretence of being a revolutionary force for the people.
The infamous 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing is another critical moment that highlights the depth of the terror unleashed by the CPP-NPA-NDF. Several explosions during an election rally caused nine deaths and wounded 95 others, clearly aiming to disrupt the democratic process and sow fear among the Filipino people. This pattern of violence continued through the 1970s and into the 1980s, with incidents such as the 19 April 1981 grenade attack on Davao City's San Pedro cathedral, killing 17, and the ongoing assaults on civilians, soldiers, and government infrastructure alike.
By 2005, the NPA had descended into more cynical tactics, such as extorting "Revolutionary Taxes" from businesses, politicians, and even civilians. In 2006, the NPA detonated landmines, injuring 15 civilians in Surigao del Sur and setting fire to a telecommunications tower in Camarines Sur. Such tactics are indicative of a movement that has transformed into a mafia-like syndicate, preying upon the very people it claims to represent. You want more!? Here’s a list:
Inopacan massacre — Purge victims’ skeletal remainswere discovered and exhumed by authorities in a mass grave site on August 28, 2006.
DXRA massacre — Attacked radio stations DXRA and DXMF, however, failed to cause casualties to the latter.
Godod ambush — Where 46 people, including 39 Philippine soldiers, in an ambush.
Rano massacre — 39 victims were members of the United Church of Christ congregation killed in church by NPA, 2 also killed in an encounter. At least eight others were wounded.
1971 Plaza Miranda bombing — Several explosions occurred during an election campaign rally of the Liberal Party at Plaza Miranda in the district of Quiapo, Manila, causing nine deaths and injuring 95 others.
13 November 1976 — NPA rebels attacked a logging truck in the area of Mambusao, Davao Oriental. Six security troops were killed and three were wounded.
27–29 August 1977 — Communist guerrillas conducted two ambushes on units of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) in the area of Pampanga, Subic. Six PC members were killed and four wounded.
19 April 1981 — Seventeen people were killed in a grenade attack on San Pedro cathedral, Davao City, during mass. Two grenades were thrown into the congregation as the traditional Easter service was concluding. New People’s Army rebels were among several groups suspected of blame, and two young members were apprehended for the attack.
January 2002 — NPA murdered an American hiker and fired on an American transport aircraft in January 2002 on the island of Luzon.
10 November 2005 — NPA set light to a public bus in the Bataan province, after the owner refused to pay a revolutionary tax.
24 July 2006 — the NPA detonated two landmines along a road situated outside the Unidos village, Surigao del Sur province, seriously injuring 15 civilians. On the same day, suspected NPA members set fire to a Globe telecommunications Tower in the Camarines Sur province.
May 2007 — the NPA imposed a countrywide campaign tax on politicians willing to participate in the 2007 midterm elections. According to a PNP source, the victorious candidate of the Albay governor’s race paid the NPA a total of $800,000. Former Albay governor Fernando Gonzales accused the NPA of denying him entry into the southern regions of the Albay province. The rebels also intensified their attacks before the election date, resulting in the deaths of 18 people.
13 November 2009 — an NPA attack on a logging site resulted in 23 deaths.
15 December 2010 — two civilians were killed, one of them a 15-year-old boy and the other a former chairman of Barangay Poponton, in an ambush on a pump boat along Hinaga River in the Northern Samar town of Las Navas. Five soldiers and a civilian were reported missing as a result of the ambush carried out with automatic weapons at around 5pm that left the civilian vessel heavily damaged. The attack was believed to have been carried out by an undetermined number of the NPA rebels who were said to be hiding along the forested area of the Hinaga River.
26 May 2011 — three construction workers are killed and another wounded in an attack staged by rebels in the ore-rich township of Tampakan.
3 October 2011 — a band of 200 NPA fighters set fire to equipment belonging to mining corporations in the villages of Cagiano and Taganito, Surigao del Norte.
17 January 2012 — six insurgents were killed during a clash in a Japanese banana plantation in the Compostela Valley.
20 October 2018 — NPA shot and killed nine sugarcane farmers, including four women and two children, while they were eating dinner in a makeshift tent on a farm in Sagay, Negros Occidental.
8 June 2021 — A bomb, either a landmine, or an improvised explosive device (IED) planted by the NPA to target government forces kills footballer Keith Absalon and his cousin Nolven as they were jogging by.
The so-called “Revolutionary Tax” is nothing more than protection money, extorted from businesses and individuals who are powerless to resist. The NPA targets regions with little military presence, enforcing their will by force: businesses that refuse to comply find themselves burned, bombed, or otherwise destroyed. It matters not if the owner is Filipino, Chinese, Visayan, or any other ethnicity—the NPA's target is profit, not people.
Assault on Democracy!
But it’s not just businesses that suffer. The NPA’s tactics have infiltrated even the political process through a corrupt and dangerous system of "Permits." The "Permit to Campaign" scheme is a direct assault on democracy itself. Candidates must pay a fee—sometimes as high as half a million pesos or more—to campaign in regions controlled by the NPA. This is a gross violation of democratic principles. It is extortion at its worst, and it undermines the very foundation of the Filipino people’s right to choose their leaders freely and fairly. As the Commission on Human Rights notes, this practice forces candidates to either pay for permission to campaign or face threats of violence.
“The Commission on Human Rights takes cognizance of various reports from the media with regard to the “Permit to Campaign “Scheme being implemented by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), New People’s Army (NPA) and other non-state actors. Under this scheme, said non-state actors solicit money from candidates amounting from Ten Thousand Pesos to Half a Million Pesos, or sometimes even millions (for congressional seats), depending on the position aimed for by the candidates and his/her capacity to pay. Current reports even show that these non-state actors plan to upgrade their permit to campaign scheme to “Permit to Win” which is more lucrative for their purposes.
Upon payment thereof, these non-state actors issue permits to campaign which, in turn, give the candidates the freedom to enter and campaign, unrestricted, in the hinterland barangays that are either rebel — infested or are within their “influence” or “control.” Otherwise, candidates who refuse to pay the fees face threats upon their lives and security. One Samar town mayor admitted having paid the fee which allowed him to campaign in several far-flung barangays in their town. The town mayor eventually won. While another Samar town official was allegedly held hostage by the NPA during the 2004 elections due to her non-payment of permit to campaign fee, which also included the giving of firearms. Several politicians have complained of this practice while the Armed Forces of the Philippines have affirmed the same. Various reports have shown that this scheme is flagrant in the regions of the Calabarzon and Mimaropa, the provinces of Sorsogon, Catanduanes, Masbate and Camarines Sur and Norte in the Bicol Region, Pampanga, Tarlac, Pangasinan, Bulacan, Bataan, Aurora and Nueva Ecija, Ilocos, Benguet, La Union, Isabela, Cagayan, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Rizal in north-central Karapatang Pantao: Likas Sa Atin, Tungkulin Natin Luzon. This is also present in Davao City, Butuan and other areas in Mindanao, as well as in Samar and Leyte and other parts of the Visayas region.
[…]
The “Permit to Campaign Scheme” which, in plain language, is a form of extortion being perpetrated by the New People’s Army and other non-state actors, is repugnant in all possible ways to valued human rights principles and standards, not only of candidates and political parties, but of the individual voters as well. This practice effectively prevents candidates and parties from entering certain “territories” allegedly under the “control” of these non-state actors, unless a certain amount or other considerations of value is given as a license or a pass, a ‘permit,’ to enter and campaign. Requiring the payment of permits to campaign fees imposes additional property requirement to candidates and political parties to exercise their right to participate in the conduct of public affairs contrary to the Constitutional provision that “No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage,” and international human rights standards. Further, this practice limits and violates the rights to equality, free opinion, free expression, information, assembly, freedom of movement and freedom against discrimination, among others, of candidates and political parties who fail or refuse to pay the same. Similarly, it effectively disenfranchises eligible voters who reside in the so-called “territories” of these non-state actors from fully exercising their right to suffrage. Without their consent, these voters are prevented from receiving valuable information, meeting and knowing the candidates face to face and hearing their programs of government that will help them choose their candidates and express their true and express will. This practice arrogates to the requiring group the powers rightfully belonging to the people and lawfully designated authorities.”
“ON THE PERMIT-TO-CAMPAIGN SCHEME IMPOSED BY THE NPAs AND OTHER NON-STATE GROUPS”, HUMAN RIGHTS ADVISORY CHR (IV) A2010-002
This directly contradicts the core values of democracy, and in a Marxist-Leninist sense, it undermines the very foundation of the Mass Line, which seeks to elevate the voice of the people. To make matters worse, the NPA has begun implementing a "Permit to Win" scheme, where the price for a candidate’s victory becomes yet another transactional commodity. This corrupt and anti-democratic practice is not only an affront to the rights of candidates but also disenfranchises entire communities, keeping them from fully participating in the democratic process.
The fact that this system exists under the banner of Marxism-Leninism is nothing short of an insult to the revolutionaries who fought for real justice, equality, and the liberation of the people. Mao Zedong, in his leadership of the Chinese Soviet Republic, would never have tolerated such a system. The elections in Yan’an were free, fair, and open to all. There were no extortionist "revolutionary taxes" and no "permits" to participate. The CPP-NPA-NDF, by imposing such a system, have completely departed from Mao’s model of leadership. It is a betrayal of the very principles that should guide a true revolutionary movement.
In light of these actions, it’s clear that the CPP-NPA-NDF is no longer a force for the liberation of the people. Instead, it has become a mafia-like apparatus, using coercion, violence, and extortion to consolidate power in the hands of a few. The fact that they claim to be following the path of “Mao’s China” only highlights their betrayal of the revolutionary cause. It’s time to shift our focus to the actual ideology, theory, and politics of this organization—because if we are to understand the full scope of its degeneration, we must critically examine the foundations upon which it claims to stand.
The Corruption of Marxism-Leninism by Maoism and MLM
The so-called adherents of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) (or Maoists) represent a tragic distortion of revolutionary thought. They stand as a glaring example of idealism run amok, bereft of the rigorous dialectical analysis and materialist foundation that Marxism-Leninism demands. They speak loftily of Marx, Lenin, and Mao, but in truth, they twist their works and bastardize their ideas in the most grotesque manner imaginable. These individuals, calling themselves Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, have strayed far from the path of scientific socialism, conjuring a utopian vision that exists not in the material world but in the realm of wishful thinking and blind idealism. They have traded the sharp, critical lens of dialectical materialism for a shallow, romanticized vision of revolution that serves only to cloud their judgment and lead them astray.
At the heart of this distortion lies the abominable version of Maoism, which is, in fact, the worst kind of heresy when compared to the real thought and practice of Mao Zedong. Mao was a revolutionary, not a deity. He was a Marxist-Leninist and a humble man of profound intellectual and practical contributions to the struggle for liberation. He did not elevate his thoughts to the level of an unchallengeable dogma or build a cult of personality around his name. In contrast, the so-called Maoists, those who wrap themselves in the mantle of Mao while distorting his principles, treat him as some idealized figurehead, a symbol to be worshipped, rather than a man whose revolutionary work was grounded in scientific analysis and material conditions.
Mao’s own words to the Indian Maoists exemplify this humility and practicality:
“Forget everything you have learnt here in China. Once back in Naxalbari, formulate your own revolutionary strategies, keeping in mind the ground realities over there”
The First Naxal: An Authorised Biography of Kanu Sanyal — By Paul Bappaditya
This is not the call of a man who sought to impose a rigid, abstract ideology onto the real world, but rather the advice of a revolutionary who understood the importance of adapting to the unique material conditions of each struggle. Yet, those who claim to follow Mao have utterly ignored this advice, distorted his works and imposed a foreign, idealized vision of revolution that has no bearing on the material conditions of the people they claim to represent.
This is not unlike the way the Roman Catholic Church corrupted the words of Christ for its own gain, transforming a progressive, revolutionary movement into a tool of aristocratic power. Early Christians, as Marx and Engels pointed out, were progressives—champions of the oppressed—but their message was co-opted by the Roman ruling class, and the church became an instrument of capitalist exploitation. Similarly, the Maoists have taken the core ideas of Mao and twisted them into a perverse form of political cultism, using them to justify violence and repression rather than the liberation of the proletariat.
The MLM ideology did not spring from the ideas of Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but was instead popularized by the ‘Shining Path’ in Peru. Even the name "Shining Path" reeks of a cultish, messianic worldview, completely at odds with the rational, dialectical approach to revolution. The Shining Path’s leader, Gonzalo, led a movement that indiscriminately massacred anyone they deemed reactionary—whether police, priests, or even elected government officials—and this was done without regard for the principles of Marxism-Leninism or the masses’ needs. Innocent civilians, including children, were caught in the bloodshed. How can these self-proclaimed “Maoists” call themselves Marxist-Leninists or even communists, when their actions directly contradict the teachings of Marx, Lenin, and Mao?
Mao himself never descended into such barbarity. Even during the Cultural Revolution, when the Red Guards marched out of control, Mao’s earlier works—on the Mass Line, Democratic Centralism, Self-Criticism, and Seeking Truth from Facts—were thoroughly contradicted. This period in Mao's life, deeply regrettable as it was, does not negate the decades of work he put into building a scientific, materialist framework for revolution. His errors, like those of Lenin and Stalin, were the result of miscalculations, not the core principles they espoused.
Maoism, or MLM, represents a radical and zealous rejection of dialectics and materialism. These so-called revolutionaries have turned their backs on the scientific method and the concrete analysis of class struggle, instead opting for an idealist, visionary outlook that is detached from the reality of the oppressed masses. True revolutionaries—Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin—recognized that revolution is not a matter of fantasy or wishful thinking. It is a material process, driven by the antagonisms inherent in society, and it occurs when the conditions are ripe.
Take China as an example. Before the revolution, China was a semi-feudal society, steeped in poverty and backwardness. A revolution was not a matter of philosophical speculation; it was a material necessity born from the deep suffering of the people. The Chinese revolution, like the Russian revolution, arose from the failure of the old feudal systems to withstand imperialist aggression and internal contradictions. The Kuomintang (KMT), rejecting left-wing forces, massacred communists and proletarians in the cities, sparking a fierce class struggle that would fuel the eventual rise of the People's Republic.
In this context, revolution was not a question of ideology alone—it was a question of survival and liberation. The struggles of China and Russia, while deeply different in their historical and material conditions, were united by one essential truth: revolution must be grounded in the material realities of the people, not in the utopian fantasies of those detached from the everyday struggles of the working class. The Marxist-Leninist method demands that we always “seek truth from facts,” and any revolutionary movement that strays from this principle, turning instead to idealism and abstraction, will only lead to betrayal and destruction.
The so-called Maoists, the MLM ideologues, do not understand this. They are more interested in creating a cult of personality and imbuing their movement with a sense of mysticism and purity, rather than confronting the real, material conditions of class struggle. Their actions and ideas are nothing more than an attempt to create an imagined world where revolution exists not as a scientific process but as a fantasy of their own making. The masses deserve better than this; they deserve a revolution grounded in dialectical materialism, one that seeks to liberate the working class, not glorify the individual. It is time to return to the true revolutionary spirit of Marxism-Leninism, to abandon these idealist distortions, and to build a movement based on the real, material needs of the people.
Revolution is not merely a lofty ideal or a distant dream. It is a sacred, imperative duty—an act bound by the material interests of the proletariat, the oppressed masses who bear the weight of capitalist exploitation. The revolutionary struggle is one of historical necessity, an inevitable force driven by the antagonistic class relations that define society under capitalism. But this struggle, as Lenin so aptly put it in Chapter 4 of “What is to be done”, is not a spontaneous, chaotic eruption of discontent. No, the revolution must be guided, directed, and organized by a vanguard party—a party that is at once a product of the people and a force that shapes them. This vanguard must be one that is completely committed to the scientific principles of Marxism, guided by dialectical materialism, and grounded in the material conditions of the world around us.
Lenin, in his seminal work “What is to be Done?”, made it abundantly clear that the party of the proletariat must be composed of those who have fully accepted its principles and are committed to the collective struggle. A party whose membership is open, inclusive, and transparent, where the only requirement is a firm adherence to the revolutionary program and the willingness to render all possible support to its cause. The party, in this sense, is not an exclusive club for a select few but a broad, open organization that is constantly evolving, constantly educating, and constantly striving to unite the working class under the banner of scientific socialism.
In a truly revolutionary party, the arena of politics would be as open to the public as a theatre stage is to an audience. The actions of the party would not be veiled in secrecy or cloaked in mystery but would be subject to public scrutiny at all times. This transparency is not just about accountability, but about actively engaging the masses in the process of revolution. Lenin spoke of a "mechanism" that would bring about the "survival of the fittest," not in the Darwinian sense, but in the sense that the best, most capable elements of the party would emerge through a process of continuous self-criticism, democratic centralism, and collective struggle. The party would not only lead the revolution but would also be a model for the broader society, a beacon of democratic, class-conscious discipline that would inspire the masses to rise up and transform the world.
The vanguard party's primary function in its early stages is twofold. First, it must safeguard Marxism from corruption by alien and counter-revolutionary ideologies, protecting its core principles from distortion and co-optation. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it must educate the proletariat, raising their consciousness to a level where they can grasp the full implications of the class struggle and understand the revolutionary task before them. This education is crucial in dispelling the "false consciousness" that the ruling classes have instilled in the working class—false beliefs that serve to perpetuate their oppression. The vanguard party, as the most advanced and class-conscious segment of the proletariat, is uniquely equipped to lead this educational mission, guiding the workers towards the revolutionary realization of their collective power.
It is not the task of the party to degrade the revolutionary spirit into mere amateurism. The goal is not to lower the level of the revolutionary, but to raise the level of the masses to the point where they can truly understand and embrace the necessity of revolution. If the party succeeds in this educational mission, then by the time the revolution is upon us, the working class will be prepared—not just in terms of numbers, but in terms of consciousness, organization, and determination. The critical mass of the proletariat will be ready to bring about the transformation of society, to overthrow the bourgeois order, and to establish a socialist state that serves the interests of the workers, not the capitalists.
This process will not be immediate, nor will it be easy. But the success of the revolution will rest on the ability of the vanguard party to carry out its role as the educator, the organizer, and the leader of the proletariat. As the party grows, it will absorb into its ranks the most dedicated and committed members of the working class, who will become the professional revolutionaries—the cadres who will lead the charge in the transformation of society. These comrades will be chosen by the masses themselves, not through arbitrary means, but through a democratic process that reflects the principles of democratic centralism. The party, therefore, will evolve from a small, disciplined organization into a mass movement, encompassing the entire working class, united in its revolutionary purpose.
However, there are those who, in their idealism, stand in stark contrast to the scientific, materialist approach to revolution that Lenin and Marx outlined. These so-called "Maoists" often champion the idea of constant, unrelenting armed struggle, without understanding the material conditions necessary for such a struggle to succeed. Their movement is riddled with adventurism—revolutionary actions disconnected from the reality of the class struggle. From India to Peru to the Philippines, these so-called Maoist movements have been marked by failure and devastation. Despite their lofty rhetoric, these movements have failed to deliver any tangible revolutionary victories. Instead, they have denounced Marxist-Leninist states as "revisionists" and "traitors," while simultaneously betraying the very principles of dialectical materialism that form the foundation of true Marxist thought.
Their actions and ideologies stand in stark contrast to the methods and practices of Marxism-Leninism. While they decry revisionism, they themselves fall into the trap of ideological purity, divorced from the material realities of the world. They fail to understand that revolution is not an abstract ideal or a series of symbolic gestures, but a concrete, material process that is determined by the conditions of the working class. In their blind zeal, they sabotage the productive forces of society and fail to unite the workers in a common cause. They fail to recognize that revolution is a long-term process that requires careful planning, strategic action, and a deep understanding of the material world.
This is not just an academic distinction—it is a matter of life and death for the revolutionary cause. The "Maoist" ideology, with its insistence on armed struggle and cultural revolution without regard for the material conditions of the masses, represents a dangerous diversion from the true path of revolution. It is not the path laid out by Marx, Lenin, and Mao, but a perverse distortion that risks undermining the very movement it claims to support.
In contrast, true Marxism-Leninism, the ideology of scientific socialism, is not concerned with sectarian dogma or idealized fantasies of revolution. It is concerned with the real, material struggles of the working class, and with organizing the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie through a well-constructed, disciplined, and scientifically grounded approach. Maoism, as synthesized by figures like Abimael Guzmán, has no connection to the real Mao Zedong-Thought (MZT) that guided the Communist Party of China in its revolutionary struggle. MZT, as articulated by the CPC, is grounded in the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and it remains the ideological foundation of the party today. Those who seek to separate Mao from his revolutionary context and impose an idealized, utopian vision of revolution are straying far from the path of true Marxist-Leninist thought.
In conclusion, the task before us is clear. We must build a revolutionary movement that is grounded in dialectical materialism, guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and dedicated to the education, organization, and liberation of the proletariat. We must reject the idealist distortions of Maoism and other sectarian ideologies and focus on the task of uniting the working class in the struggle for socialism. Only then can we truly begin the work of transforming society and building a future based on equality, justice, and collective ownership of the means of production.
In Defence of Marxism-Leninism Against Revolutionary Primitiveness!
Lenin, in his crucial work What is to be Done?, illuminated the crude, unrefined beginnings of the revolutionary movement that sought to tear down the oppressive structures of society. He did not mince words when he described the revolutionary primitives—the scattered, disorganized, and ill-prepared revolutionaries of his time. He explained that while these students, filled with revolutionary fervour, embraced Marxism as a solution to the pressing question of "What is to be done?", they marched to battle woefully unprepared. They were armed with little more than their idealism and their raw, undisciplined energy. Lenin described how they lacked organization, lacked discipline, and lacked the necessary connection to the broader revolutionary movement. Their efforts, while noble in intent, were doomed to failure due to their absolute lack of coordination, planning, and understanding of the complex tasks at hand.
In his analysis, Lenin also noted that while the primitive conditions of the early revolutionary fighters were inevitable in the nascent stages of any movement, this lack of organization would soon prove fatal as the revolution grew in scale and intensity. The state, initially thrown into confusion, quickly adapted to the new situation, deploying its own perfectly organized agents—spies, provocateurs, and gendarmes—who successfully thwarted the revolutionaries' efforts. The result was the fragmentation of the movement, the destruction of local study circles, and the loss of leadership for the workers. The revolutionary cause devolved into a series of disjointed, sporadic actions, and the workers, increasingly weary and disillusioned by the intellectuals' inability to organize, began to lose faith in their leadership.
This historical lesson—this "revolutionary primitiveness"—serves as a cautionary tale for every revolutionary movement that follows. Lenin’s critique of this amateurish, uncoordinated approach to revolution is as relevant today as it was in his time. It is a lesson that should be learned by every revolutionary force, especially those who seek to wage armed struggle without first establishing the solid, organized foundation necessary for victory.
“We have noted that the entire student youth of the period was absorbed in Marxism. Of course, these students were not only, or even not so much, interested in Marxism as a theory; they were interested in it as an answer to the question, “What is to be done?”, as a call to take the field against the enemy. These new warriors marched to battle with astonishingly primitive equipment and training. In a vast number of cases, they had almost no equipment and absolutely no training. They marched to war like peasants from the plough, armed only with clubs. A students’ circle establishes contacts with workers and sets to work, without any connection with the old members of the movement, without any connection with study circles in other districts, or even in other parts of the same city, without any organisation of the various divisions of revolutionary work, without any systematic plan of activity covering any length of time.
True, from the historical point of view, the primitiveness of equipment was not only inevitable at first, but even legitimate as one of the conditions for the wide recruiting of fighters, but as soon as serious war operations began, the defects in our fighting organisations made themselves felt to an ever-increasing degree. The government, at first thrown into confusion and committing a number of blunders, very soon adapted itself to the new conditions of the struggle and managed to deploy well its perfectly equipped detachments of agents provocateurs, spies, and gendarmes. Raids became so frequent, affected such a vast number of people, and cleared out the local study circles so thoroughly that the masses of the workers lost literally all their leaders, the movement assumed an amazingly sporadic character, and it became utterly impossible to establish continuity and coherence in the work.
The terrible dispersion of the local leaders; the fortuitous character of the study circle memberships; the lack of training in, and the narrow outlook on, theoretical, political, and organisational questions were all the inevitable result of the conditions described above. Things have reached such a pass that in several places the workers, because of our lack of self-restraint and the inability to maintain secrecy, begin to lose faith in the intellectuals and to avoid them; the intellectuals, they say, are much too careless and cause police raids!”
Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done? ch.IV
Fast forward to the present day, and we find that these same errors are being repeated by the so-called Maoist movements, particularly the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA). The CPP's statement on its "Great Achievements" openly admits that the armed struggle—its so-called "main weapon" for defeating the enemy—lacks the broad, proletarian support necessary to sustain such a revolutionary endeavour. In a stunning display of theoretical blindness, the CPP acknowledges that the NPA is still lacking in urban units and that the "broad masses of people" have risen up without the proper organizational support.
“The NPA is the main weapon of the people for defeating the enemy and winning the revolution. Without it, the people have nothing. It carries out three integral tasks: revolutionary armed struggle, agrarian revolution and mass base building…
Under the direction of the CPP, the broad united front has twice succeeded in overthrowing the reactionary regime. First, it succeeded in fighting, undermining and overthrowing the Marcos fascist dictatorship from 1972 to 1986 and in ousting the corrupt Estrada regime in 2001.
Even without as yet deploying units of the people army in the cities aside from armed city partisans, the broad masses of the people rose up to show their hatred for the ruling clique and subsequently the reactionary armed forces refused to follow orders to attack the people but decided to withdraw support from the hated ruler.”
Great Achievements of the CPP in 50 Years of Waging Revolution, Communist Party Philippines
What does this tell us? It reveals the utter alienation of the CPP from the very proletariat it claims to represent. Their armed struggle, devoid of the necessary popular base and organizational continuity, is little more than a disjointed, spontaneous uprising—a shadow of a true revolutionary movement.
This mirrors the very mistake Lenin criticized in the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the anarchistic, peasant-based movement that sought to wage revolution without a firm, scientific understanding of class struggle. The Socialist-Revolutionaries believed that the peasantry and the proletariat were one and the same—that the struggle could be waged without a clear distinction between these two classes. This same error can be seen in today’s Maoist movements. They attempt to merge the interests of the proletariat and the peasantry into a single, homogenous mass, ignoring the fact that these are distinct classes with fundamentally different material interests.
In essence, today’s Maoist movements, including the CPP-NPA, have reduced themselves to a mere echo of the peasant-led uprisings that Lenin critiqued. They are little more than a continuation of the same primitive, disorganized adventurism that Lenin so forcefully condemned. The ideological framework of the Maoist parties—particularly their obsession with armed struggle and their failure to build a solid, broad-based proletarian movement—is nothing short of a dangerous diversion from the true path of revolution.
Terrorism isn’t REVOLUTIONARY!
Just as the Socialist-Revolutionaries failed in their attempts to build a viable revolutionary movement due to their reliance on spontaneous acts of violence and terror, so too will the Maoists fail if they do not recognize the need for proper revolutionary organization and mass support. Armed struggle, divorced from the masses and grounded in an incoherent, idealist vision of revolution, will never lead to the overthrow of imperialism or the establishment of socialism. True revolution requires not only the courage to fight but the wisdom to build, to organize, and to educate the masses in the scientific principles of Marxism-Leninism. This is the only path to victory, and the failure to follow it will only result in more disillusionment, more fragmentation, and, ultimately, more failure.
In essence, the position articulated by the Maoist forces of today is one that reduces their supposed revolutionary struggle to little more than the spontaneous uprising of peasants, and by their own admission, their armed struggle has been reduced to nothing more than an act of terrorism. Let us turn to Lenin’s seminal work Revolutionary Adventurism, where he masterfully dismantles such approaches:
“We are not repeating the terrorists’ mistakes and are not diverting attention from work among the masses, the Socialist-Revolutionaries assure us, and at the same time enthusiastically recommend to the Party acts such as Balmashov’s assassination of Sipyagin, although everyone knows and sees perfectly well that this act was in no way connected with the masses and, moreover, could not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out—that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definite action or support on the part of the masses. In their naïveté, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realise that their predilection for terrorism is causally most intimately linked with the fact that, from the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working-class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary class which is waging its class struggle. Over-ardent protestations very often lead one to doubt and suspect the worth of whatever it is that requires such strong seasoning. Do not these protestations weary them?”
V. I. Lenin, Revolutionary Adventurism
This piercing critique by Lenin cuts to the heart of the matter: these Maoist groups, much like the early Socialist-Revolutionaries, are engaging in the same futile and misguided forms of action that sever them from the very forces they claim to represent. Why, then, do these Maoist revolutionaries, like their Socialist-Revolutionary predecessors, indulge in such loud and noisy proclamations about the “rising masses” when their "city units" remain "not yet deployed"? The contradiction is glaring. They trumpet the supposed triumphs of the armed struggle, boast of weapon captures and assassinated policemen, yet the proletariat—those whose liberation is the purported goal of this struggle—remains passive, even weary. The reality is far from a mass uprising; these actions are, at their core, the misguided deeds of a few petit-bourgeois intellectuals who believe they know best for the working class, rather than actions born of the will and initiative of the working class itself.
Let us take a moment to step back and look at the historical precedent that provides insight into these modern Maoist movements. To understand the contemporary Maoist movements, we must look to the past, specifically to the Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia. This was a party on the left that opposed the Bolsheviks, arguing that the Bolsheviks were too passive, too willing to compromise with the bourgeoisie. It is instructive to examine the SRs because, in many ways, they are the original Maoists. Though they predate Mao himself, the SRs share a striking resemblance to the present-day Maoist movements. Just as Mao initially embraced anarchist theory—much of which emphasized rural, peasant-based revolutionary violence—before turning to Marxist-Leninism, the SRs were grounded in the peasant-based Narodniki movement of the 19th century, which saw terrorism and armed struggle as central to the revolutionary process.
What, then, is the lesson here? Why should we study the SRs? Because their class interests and social composition—essentially the core of any political movement—are identical to those of the modern Maoist movements. Lenin, in Revolutionary Adventurism, describes these trends with remarkable precision:
“The revolutionary movement continues to grow with amazing rapidity—and ‘our trends’ are ripening. On the other hand, trends expressing only the traditional instability of views held by the intermediate and indefinite sections of the intelligentsia try to substitute noisy declarations for rapprochement with definite classes, declarations which are all the noisier, the louder the thunder of events. ‘At least we make an infernal noise’—such is the slogan of many revolutionarily minded individuals who have been caught up in the maelstrom of events and who have neither theoretical principles nor social roots.
It is to these ‘noisy’ trends that the ‘Socialist-Revolutionaries,’ whose physiognomy is emerging more and more clearly, also belong. And it is high time for the proletariat to have a better look at this physiognomy, and form a clear idea of the real nature of these people, who seek the proletariat’s friendship all the more persistently, the more palpable it becomes to them that they cannot exist as a separate trend without close ties with the truly revolutionary class of society.”
V. I. Lenin, Revolutionary Adventurism
Here, Lenin exposes a pattern that runs from the SRs of his time to the Maoists of today. These “revolutionary intellectuals” are fully aware that their existence depends on their ability to latch onto the growing revolutionary wave, to tie themselves to the proletariat’s movement, yet they fail to immerse themselves in the practical, everyday struggles of the workers. They seek to “make noise” but fail to establish the solid class roots necessary for genuine revolutionary change. They are driven by an intellectual fantasy, by the belief that their ideas—often divorced from reality—can dictate the course of revolution. In doing so, they alienate themselves from the very class they claim to represent.
This class alienation, this disconnection from the masses, is key to understanding the failure of the Maoist movement, just as it was for the Socialist-Revolutionaries. The SRs, like the modern Maoists, sought to forge an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, but their efforts were always superficial. They insisted on a unity between these two classes, claiming there was no real class distinction between them. However, this fundamentally flawed analysis ignored the reality that the proletariat and the peasantry are distinct classes with different, often conflicting, interests within the capitalist system. The peasantry, as a class of small proprietors, may ally with the proletariat in a bourgeois revolution, but it cannot become the vanguard of the proletariat's struggle for socialism. This is the crux of the SRs’ error, and it is the same error the Maoists of today are repeating.
Petit-Bourgeois Intellectualism: False Unity of Class Struggle
The Maoists, much like the SRs, blur the line between the peasantry and the proletariat, and in doing so, they mask their own petit-bourgeois origins. This is no mere theoretical misstep; it is a betrayal of the revolutionary cause. The petit-bourgeois intellectuals who dominate the Maoist movement today continue to conflate the interests of the peasantry with those of the proletariat, attempting to present themselves as the voice of the “proletarian-peasant” class. This is a false unity—an ideological sleight of hand meant to disguise their fundamental petit-bourgeois character.
In the Bolshevik tradition, we understand that the proletariat and the peasantry are distinct classes, each with their own historical role to play in the revolution. The proletariat IS the revolutionary class, the class that must lead the struggle for socialism. The peasantry, as a class of petty proprietors, may ally with the proletariat in the fight against the feudal landowners and the bourgeoisie, but they cannot serve as the backbone of the revolution. The Maoists’ failure to grasp this fundamental distinction renders their revolutionaries’ movements incoherent and doomed to failure.
Today’s Maoist movements—just as Lenin warned about the Socialist-Revolutionaries—are but the latest iteration of a long history of petit-bourgeois intellectuals trying to wrestle control of the revolutionary movement from the workers. They fail to understand that genuine revolution can only come through the leadership of the proletariat, through a mass movement of workers who understand their own class interests and fight for their own liberation. Until the Maoists abandon their illusions and align themselves with the proletariat’s struggle, they will remain forever alienated from the true revolutionary cause.
It is critical to note an important distinction: not all Maoists outright support the Shining Path’s actions, and for good reason. Many of the actions of the Shining Path are indefensible by any rational standard. We can expect the usual wave of pseudo-denunciations from various factions, as they try to distance themselves from the most extreme aspects of the movement. However, despite these efforts to disavow certain actions, the modern Maoist movement still undeniably carries the ideological imprint of Abimael Guzmán (Chairman Gonzalo), who is the true architect of the movement’s current direction. His influence, particularly as the founder of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM)—which seeks to establish a Maoist Fourth International—has cast a long shadow over Maoist parties worldwide. RIM’s founding declaration makes this clear:
“The parties and organizations of our Movement and RIM as a whole have been engaged in revolutionary struggle against imperialism and reaction. Most important has been the advanced experience of the People’s War led by the Communist Party of Peru, which has succeeded in mobilizing the masses in their millions, sweeping aside the state in many parts of the country and establishing the power of the workers and peasants in these areas.”
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
This declaration reveals the heart of the matter: it is through Gonzalo’s vision of a "People’s War," primarily driven by the peasantry, that the Shining Path gained its notoriety. But it is vital to examine Gonzalo’s perspective directly, to fully grasp the ideological foundation from which the Maoist movement originates. Let us consider this exchange from a 1988 interview with Chairman Gonzalo:
“EL DIARIO: How do the workers and peasants participate in the People’s Guerrilla Army?
CHAIRMAN GONZALO: The peasantry, especially the poor peasants, are the main participants, as fighters and commanders at different levels in the People’s Guerrilla Army. The workers participate in the same ways, although...”
INTERVIEW WITH CHAIRMAN GONZALO, Central Committee, Communist Party of Peru, 1988
In just a few words, Gonzalo reveals the undeniable truth: the Shining Path is fundamentally a peasant movement, not a worker movement. This is the painful reality that the modern Maoists of today, both in their rhetoric and actions, refuse to confront. It is no surprise that such a movement, led by a petit-bourgeois intellectual, someone who abandoned the university to take up arms, would be driven by the peasantry rather than the urban proletariat. The very fact that Gonzalo was an intellectual—a man of the university—compounds the irony: the revolution he led was grounded in the ideology of a class that had no true connection to the working class.
But it is even more damning when Gonzalo reveals his concept of "New Power":
“In the economic base, under the New Power, we are establishing new relations of production. A concrete example of this is how we apply the land policy, utilizing collective work, and the organization of social life according to a new reality, with a joint dictatorship where for the first time workers, peasants, and progressives rule — understanding this to mean those who want to transform this country by the only means possible — people’s war.”
Interview with Chairman Gonzalo, Central Committee, Communist Party of Peru, 1988
This idea of a "joint dictatorship," where workers, peasants, and "progressives" rule together, is fundamentally flawed. It echoes the very error that Lenin warned against almost a century ago. To counter Marx’s unambiguous doctrine that there is but one truly revolutionary class—the proletariat—the Socialist-Revolutionaries of old pushed forward a trinity of classes: "the intelligentsia, the proletariat, and the peasantry." Lenin dismantled this fallacy in Revolutionary Adventurism, where he rightly pointed out that such a concoction of class alliances is nothing more than a confusion of concepts:
“To counter Marx’s doctrine that there is only one really revolutionary class in modern society, the Socialist-Revolutionaries advance the trinity: ‘the intelligentsia, the proletariat, and the peasantry,’ thereby revealing a hopeless confusion of concepts.”
V. I. Lenin, Revolutionary Adventurism
This very mistake—that of equating the peasantry with the proletariat—has been perpetuated by Gonzalo, by the Shining Path, and by every Maoist movement since, from the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP-NPA) to the original Maoist Red Guards. They have repeated this error without hesitation, without reflection, and with a profound lack of understanding of the class nature of revolution.
What is the essence of this error? The mistake lies in the fact that Maoists, by their very nature as petit-bourgeois intellectuals, have no genuine connection to the working class. This disconnect leads them to sympathize with their own individualistic posturing, with their self-interested pseudo-socialism, and to place their hopes in the peasant class, which historically provides the foundation for petit-bourgeois ideology. The petit-bourgeoisie, after all, is composed of small proprietors—urban peasants in the cities and rural peasants in the countryside.
Maoists, then, cannot fathom a society in which the proletariat is truly supreme. They cannot bear to allow the dictatorship of the proletariat to take its full, unchallenged form. Instead, they must obscure the revolutionary class struggle by disguising the petit-bourgeoisie as peasants, and the peasants as proletarians. This trickery allows them to subordinate the working class to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie. A prime example of this subterfuge can be seen in the words of José María Sison, the leader of the CPP-NPA, who writes:
“In the national united front, the proletariat and the Party rely mainly on the basic alliance of the workers and peasants, to win over the urban petty bourgeoisie.”
Philippine History, Classes and Crisis, and United Front: A Review
Note the inversion here: it is not the peasants who must rely on the alliance for support—it is the proletariat and its party that must rely on the peasantry in order to “win over” the urban petty bourgeoisie. In essence, Sison is advocating for an alliance with the petty bourgeoisie, whose interests align more closely with those of intellectuals like him, than with the true working class. This is a conscious subversion of the class struggle, an attempt to elevate the interests of the petty bourgeoisie over those of the workers.
Thus, we are left with a clear understanding: the Maoist movements, from the Shining Path to the CPP-NPA and beyond, are not movements of the proletariat. They are, at best, movements of the petty bourgeoisie—intellectuals who, in their desperate quest for relevance, cling to the peasantry as their base. But the peasantry, as the historical allies of the petit-bourgeoisie, cannot be the vanguard of the revolution. The true revolutionary class—the only class capable of overthrowing capitalism and building socialism—is the proletariat. Any attempt to obscure this fundamental truth only leads to confusion, betrayal, and, ultimately, the failure of the revolution.
Protracted People’s War: Theory, Application, and Limitations
Now, we arrive at the most crucial subject in the discussion of Maoist ideology and strategy. This is the defining tactic that has been ingrained in all Maoist movements to such an extent that it may, in fact, be considered the very essence of Maoism itself: the Protracted People’s War (PPW), a universally applicable method of revolutionary struggle that has been touted as the sole pathway to revolution.
But what, precisely, is the Protracted People’s War? This question, simple on its face, is elusive in its depth. The answer, as conceived by Chairman Mao, carries with it profound historical and strategic significance. For Mao, the Protracted People’s War was a tactical blueprint, a revolutionary strategy for conquering the state through a combination of guerrilla warfare and conventional military struggle. It was a method that sought to fuse the strength of the people—embodied in the guerrilla struggle led by the Communist Party—with the power of a disciplined and centralized military force, as represented by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). This dynamic, however, was not simply about armed conflict; it was the method through which the masses were mobilized to achieve both political and military victories.
Why did the Protracted People’s War succeed in China? The reasons are multifaceted and complex, but there are key aspects that contributed to the success of this strategy in its particular historical context. First and foremost, it is essential to understand that the success of PPW was deeply rooted in the specific conditions of China during the revolution.
The most fundamental reason for the success of this strategy was its defensive nature. The People's War emerged in response to the brutal oppression of the Communist Party of China (CPC), first by the Kuomintang (KMT), and later by the Japanese invaders. In each case, the CPC found itself forced into retreat, its members massacred, its base of operations destroyed. The people’s war was conceived as a defensive tactic, one that sought to buy time, rebuild, and wait for the enemy to make critical errors. It was a strategy that, in part, relied on the enemy’s overreach—on their blunders, their attempts to suppress and terrorize the masses, which only served to drive the people closer to the revolutionary cause. This strategic flexibility, this patient waiting for the enemy to expose its vulnerabilities, was what allowed the revolutionaries to rebuild their forces and launch successful offensives. However, what modern Maoists fail to grasp—perhaps due to an overwhelming need to romanticize the past—is that this strategy was never intended to be a universal model for revolution. It was a product of China’s unique historical moment. The specific context in which it succeeded is something that cannot simply be replicated without understanding its conditions.
Secondly, China’s vast, underdeveloped landscape played a critical role in the success of the Protracted People’s War. The lack of fast transportation networks and communication infrastructure meant that it was possible to isolate the cities and effectively sever them from the broader national and international supply chains. In an age before high-speed trains, airplanes, and the ubiquity of modern telecommunications, the revolutionary forces could, with some success, cut off cities from external support, creating a zone of influence that was difficult for the ruling forces to control. This geographic isolation allowed guerrilla forces to operate with relative impunity in rural areas, while coordinating with communist sympathizers in the urban centres. However, the realities of modern-day society—characterized by rapid transportation and instant communication—make it highly unlikely that such conditions would be present today. It is arguable that there is no modern society where guerrilla forces could effectively implement this tactic, given the speed and reach of modern military and communications technologies.
Thirdly, the success of the Protracted People’s War in China was not an accident or a spontaneous event. The CPC did not simply pick up arms at a moment’s notice and rush to the countryside. This was not the isolated action of a small group of revolutionaries seeking to ignite a sudden armed insurrection. Instead, the CPC spent years building mass support among the Mass Line, preparing the ground politically and ideologically before embarking on armed struggle. The Party had established a base of popular support long before it turned to guerrilla warfare. The masses were not simply coerced into supporting the revolution—they were won over through years of careful political and organizational work. The revolutionaries did not force the masses into armed struggle prematurely. Instead, they waited until the time was ripe, until the political consciousness of the masses had reached a point where they were willing and determined to join the fight.
The Chinese revolution, under the banner of People’s War, was never about indiscriminate violence or unprincipled terror. Mao’s understanding of warfare was rooted in the idea of winning the support of the masses, not alienating them. In regions where the political consciousness of the people was not sufficiently developed to wage armed struggle, the Party engaged in political work to educate the masses on the necessity of revolution. This work was gradual, rooted in the immediate needs and conditions of the people, and aimed at raising their awareness of why armed struggle was the only means to secure their liberation.
Mao himself emphasized this point with clarity in his writings:
“All work done for the masses must start from their needs and not from the desire of any individual, however well-intentioned. It often happens that objectively the masses need a certain change, but subjectively they are not yet conscious of the need, not yet willing or determined to make the change. In such cases, we should wait patiently. We should not make the change until, through our work, most of the masses have become conscious of the need and are willing and determined to carry it out. Otherwise, we shall isolate ourselves from the masses.”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, The United Front in Cultural Work, October 30, 1944
Mao’s understanding of the relationship between the revolutionary vanguard and the masses was rooted in a deep commitment to the principle that the people must be the driving force of revolution. Armed struggle could only be pursued once the people were sufficiently politically conscious and prepared to join in the struggle. This was not about forcing the masses into action before they were ready, but about patiently building the political conditions for a revolution that was truly popular in nature.
Thus, the Protracted People’s War was not a panacea for all revolutionary movements—it was a strategy that emerged from specific historical, geographic, and political conditions. It was a method that sought to involve the people in a process of gradual development, of political awakening, and of strategic patience. To understand its success, and to replicate its lessons, one must first comprehend the unique circumstances that allowed it to flourish in China. The modern Maoist movements, by contrast, often misunderstand or ignore these conditions, applying a tactic that was born out of a particular historical moment to contexts that may bear little resemblance to that moment. Without the proper political groundwork, without the right conditions for mass support, and without a clear understanding of the people’s readiness for revolution, the Protracted People’s War risks becoming a futile and misguided pursuit.
How has the “Protracted People’s War” been applied by Maoist movements since its inception, and how closely does it adhere to the original theoretical framework laid down by Chairman Mao himself? To examine this, let us first look at the words of Chairman Gonzalo of the Communist Party of Peru:
“CHAIRMAN GONZALO: With regard to violence we start from the principle established by Chairman Mao Tsetung: violence, that is the need for revolutionary violence, is a universal law with no exception. Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people’s war… The way we see this question is that when Chairman Mao Tsetung established the theory of people’s war and put it into practice, he provided the proletariat with its military line, with a military theory and practice that is universally valid and therefore applicable everywhere in accordance with the concrete conditions.”
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru: “Interview With Chairman Gonzalo,” July 1, 1988
From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, this statement represents a profound misinterpretation of Mao’s original analysis and a gross oversimplification of revolutionary strategy. While Mao’s Protracted People’s War was indeed rooted in the necessity of violence to confront the contradictions of class society, it was far from a universal remedy or a one-size-fits-all solution. Mao himself recognized that the application of his strategy was bound by the specific historical, geographical, and material conditions of China. Violence, as a principle, was not abstractly applied in every case—it was the result of concrete conditions and practical necessity, not an ideological dogma imposed in every situation.
To clarify this further, let us turn to Lenin, who provided a critical correction to the idealism promoted by certain revolutionary movements. In his work The Importance of Gold Now and After the Complete Victory of Socialism, Lenin warned against the dogmatic adherence to the idea that revolutionary violence alone could solve all problems:
“True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the ‘great, victorious, world’ revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner under all circumstances and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is certain. What grounds are there for assuming that the ‘great, victorious, world’ revolution can and must employ only revolutionary methods? There are none at all. The assumption is a pure fallacy; this can be proved by purely theoretical propositions if we stick to Marxism.”
V. I. Lenin, The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism
Lenin is clear in his rejection of the idea that revolutionary violence is an automatic, all-encompassing answer to every issue faced by a revolutionary movement. The notion that violence is the only answer—universal, unchanging, and infallible—would be a grave error. Revolutionary violence must be tempered by a sober and dialectical understanding of the concrete realities of the struggle.
This brings us to the central error of Gonzalo and his followers, as they sought to apply the theory of Protracted People’s War in Peru. Gonzalo’s assertion that war is “principally constructive” highlights a dangerous romanticization of violence and destruction that is far removed from the proletariat’s true interests. In his own words:
“We see the problem of war this way: war has two aspects, destructive and constructive. Construction is the principal aspect. Not to see it this way undermines the revolution —weakens it.”
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru: “Interview With Chairman Gonzalo,” July 1, 1988
This claim—that war’s principal function is constructive—reveals a profound misunderstanding of the nature of war, as well as a disconnect from the masses. War, especially in its revolutionary form, is inherently destructive. It destroys lives, communities, and social relations. To describe war as "constructive" is to ignore its overwhelming devastation, which inevitably leads to the destruction of the social fabric, the disintegration of the very relationships that are needed to build a new society. It reflects the mindset of a petit-bourgeois intellectual, one who is detached from the horrors and consequences of war, seeing it only as a tool to advance abstract political goals, without considering the material suffering it inflicts on the proletariat and the peasantry.
The masses, both reactionary and revolutionary, DO NOT view war as CONSTRUCTIVE. They despise the suffering it causes, the loss of life, the disruption of their daily existence. While it is true that the masses can be moved to revolutionary war when they see it as the only avenue for change, to glorify war as an inherently constructive force is to perpetuate the ideology of intellectuals who stand to benefit from the chaos of conflict, rather than from its resolution. This mindset—often characteristic of petit-bourgeois intellectuals—ignores the true needs of the people and substitutes romanticized notions of revolution for a concrete, materialist approach to class struggle.
This ideological blindness becomes all too evident when we consider the disastrous outcomes of the Maoist-led struggles in Peru, exemplified by the Shining Path. Under Gonzalo’s leadership, the Shining Path became a movement that pursued violence with a reckless abandon, disregarding the impact of its actions on the masses it purported to represent. The group’s attacks, such as the notorious Lucanamarca massacre, reveal the deep dissonance between the Shining Path’s claims to represent the peasantry and the reality of their actions:
“In the face of reactionary military actions… we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn’t imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. the principal thing is that we dealt them a devastating blow, and we checked them and they understood that they were dealing with a different kind of people’s fighters, that we weren’t the same as those they had fought before. This is what they understood.”
“Interview with Chairman Gonzalo” Peru, July 1988
Gonzalo’s comments show not only a complete lack of remorse for the violence he sanctioned, but also a total failure to understand the broader consequences of such actions. By attacking the very people, they claimed to represent, the Shining Path alienated the masses and created an atmosphere of terror and distrust. This was not a revolutionary act but a self-destructive one, one that led to Gonzalo’s eventual capture and the collapse of the Shining Path’s influence. This tragic turn of events underscores the fundamental flaw in the approach adopted by Gonzalo and his followers: an uncritical adherence to violence without a sober understanding of the conditions necessary for true revolutionary success.
Similarly, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People's Army (NPA), have been engaged in their “armed struggle” for decades, with little to show for it. Rather than advancing the interests of the working class, the CPP-NPA has devolved into a gang of extortionists, collecting millions through illegal “revolutionary taxes” while remaining miles away from achieving any genuine political power. Under the leadership of Joma Sison, a petit-bourgeois intellectual who fled the Philippines in 1987, the movement has taken a brutal turn, mirroring the actions of the Shining Path with indiscriminate acts of terror, including rape, murder, and decapitation. These are not the actions of a proletarian movement but of a petty-bourgeois clique that has lost touch with the people it claims to represent.
The failure of Maoism, especially as applied by the Shining Path and similar groups, is a clear demonstration of the dangers of dogmatic adherence to violence without a concrete, material understanding of revolutionary conditions. History has shown us that such movements not only fail to achieve their goals but also end up alienating the very people they aim to liberate. The Protracted People’s War, as conceived by Mao, was a specific strategy for a specific time and place. It was never meant to be a universal prescription for revolution, but a tactic born out of the unique conditions of China. To ignore these conditions and apply it indiscriminately leads only to failure, suffering, and division.
Maoism: A Pseudo-Revolutionary Betrayal of Proletarian Struggle
Maoism, as a proclaimed tool of revolutionary praxis, has revealed itself not as a mechanism for proletarian liberation but as an obstacle to it—a pseudo-revolutionary mask concealing petit-bourgeois interests and often, in practice, aligning itself with the forces of imperialism. In every nation where it has taken root, Maoism has failed to forge a practical or sustainable path toward socialism. Instead, it has functioned as a divisive force, pitting self-described Maoist factions against the very proletariats they claim to represent while inadvertently bolstering the dominance of global capital.
The historical parallels are striking: Maoists in our era fulfil the same role as the revisionists and opportunists of the past, akin to the likes of Kautsky and Trotsky—figures who betrayed revolutionary principles in favour of intellectual posturing and capitulation. Today’s Maoists perpetuate the same tired sophistries, selling capitalism as socialism, imperialism as sovereignty, and the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie as those of the proletariat.
Filemon "Ka Popoy" Lagman, a Filipino Marxist-Leninist thinker, aptly critiques this departure from scientific socialism in his assessment of Jose Maria Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Lagman dissects Sison's Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution (PPDR), exposing its fundamental betrayal of Marxist-Leninist principles:
“The Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution drafted by Sison in 1968 is the best proof of his abandonment or ignorance of the most basic principles of Marxism-Leninism — the class struggle and scientific socialism.
In the Party program, he substituted the Maoist “mass line” for the Marxist-Leninist ‘class line.’ He completely obscured and glossed over the struggle for socialism in his obsession for national democracy. Sison’s failure to grasp the Marxist-Leninist class struggle and his fanatical adherence to Maoism which distorts this theory explain his vulgarized concept of revolution.
The essential defect of PPDR is its basic character which makes it totally unacceptable as a class program of the Party of the class-conscious Filipino proletariat. It does not even pretend to be a class program but proclaims itself to be a ‘people’s program.’
It is a Party Program without the struggle for socialism and without a separate section on workers’ demands in the period of the democratic revolution. It characterized Philippine society as ‘semicolonial and semifeudal’ without bringing into the foreground and emphasizing more strongly its bourgeois, capitalist basic process. It failed to present the real meaning and substance of proletarian class leadership in the democratic revolution. It elaborated a vulgarized, totally non-Marxist, non-Leninist concept of a people’s revolution that departs fundamentally from the theory of class struggle. And lastly, it presented a peasant not a proletarian stand on the agrarian question and a patriotic not a proletarian stand on the colonial question.”
Filemon ‘Ka Popoy’ Lagman, PPDR: Class Line Vs. Mass Line
Lagman rightly points out that the PPDR substitutes Maoism’s nebulous “mass line” for the Marxist-Leninist class line, effectively undermining the proletariat's leadership in the revolutionary struggle. By framing its program as a “people’s revolution” rather than a proletarian one, the CPP abandoned the core principles of Marxism-Leninism, substituting the scientific analysis of class struggle with a populist rhetoric that serves no one but the petit-bourgeoisie. The Maoist preoccupation with agrarian revolution and peasant-centric strategies further divorces it from the urban proletariat—the class that Marx, Engels, and Lenin identified as the revolutionary vanguard in capitalist societies.
This theoretical deviation has real-world consequences, as demonstrated by Sison’s own words and the trajectory of Maoist movements worldwide. In an interview, Sison celebrated the Shining Path’s violent insurgency in Peru, calling it “an exceedingly happy and inspiring event” for the proletariat globally, despite its catastrophic failure and the atrocities it committed. His rhetoric aligns seamlessly with that of the broader Maoist movement, which obsessively denounces “Dengist” reforms in China and “Soviet social imperialism” while failing to offer meaningful critiques of its own failures:
“The people’s war in Peru broke out in the early 1980s as an exceedingly happy and inspiring event for the proletariat and people not only in Peru but in the whole world in the face of dismal events, such as the Dengist counterrevolution and capitalist restoration in China adding up to the continuing degeneration of Soviet modern revisionism and to the self-defeating adventures of Soviet social imperialism.”
Interview with Jose Maria Sison, Founding Chairman, Communist Party of the Philippines, By Àngel Marrades
What stands out here is not only the absence of self-criticism but the glorification of movements like the Shining Path, whose violent tactics alienated the masses and ultimately led to their collapse. Sison’s refusal to confront the failures of Gonzalo’s movement—both its brutal consequences and its inability to achieve revolutionary aims—illustrates a broader trend within Maoist thought: a dogmatic adherence to violence and populism, unmoored from the material conditions and the dialectics of revolutionary struggle.
The pattern is clear. From Peru to the Philippines, Maoist movements have not only failed to advance proletarian interests but have actively set them back, reducing revolutionary politics to empty sloganeering and violent adventurism. By alienating the masses and rejecting the scientific principles of Marxism-Leninism, they have become obstacles to revolution rather than its agents. History will remember Maoism not as a force for liberation but as a symptom of the petit-bourgeois intellectual’s inability to grasp the realities of class struggle—a failed experiment that has served imperialism far more effectively than it has the proletariat.
The tragic irony of Sison’s Maoist stance is that it led to the assassination of Filemon "Ka Popoy" Lagman—an act that, to this day, underscores the destructive tendencies of the Maoist current. For those of us who are committed to revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, the reality of the situation in the Philippines cannot be ignored. The story of the CPP is not merely a tale of revolutionary ambition but one of consistent ideological confusion, political opportunism, and contradictions that have continually undermined its stated goals.
The CPP was born out of the global wave of anti-imperialist student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These movements were, in no small part, a reaction to the naked aggression of U.S. imperialism and its European collaborators. In the Philippines, this era coincided with a period of immense economic instability and widespread discontent toward the Marcos dictatorship and its servile relationship with U.S. imperialism. Against this backdrop, Jose Maria Sison, leader of the radical youth group Kabataang Makabayan (Patriotic Youth), founded the Communist Party of the Philippines in 1968 alongside other activists. Duterte, at the time, was also an active member of Kabataang Makabayan, although there is no record of him joining the CPP.
The CPP's first significant historical role was during the so-called "People’s Power Revolution," which ousted the nationalist dictator Ferdinand Marcos in favour of Corazon Aquino, a liberal proxy for comprador bourgeois interests. Rather than steering the revolution toward socialism, the CPP found itself complicit in replacing one form of oppression with another, as Aquino’s administration continued to serve imperialist interests. Sison, who was imprisoned during this period, was later released under Aquino’s presidency. Strangely, instead of returning to the struggle, he chose to go into self-imposed exile in the Netherlands in 1986—a move that remains controversial, as he has since directed the party from abroad, largely removed from the material conditions of the struggle in the Philippines.
During the Aquino administration, the CPP’s armed struggle stagnated, and the 1990s saw deep fractures emerge within the party. Factions critical of Sison’s leadership called for intensified armed struggle and a shift toward urban guerrilla tactics. Sison, however, rejected these demands, branding dissenters as “rejectionists” and initiating what he dubbed the “Second Great Rectification Movement.” This campaign, intended to purge ideological deviations, instead exacerbated internal divisions, leading to the splintering of the CPP into more than eight rival factions. Some of these factions negotiated their surrender with the Philippine government, further undermining the credibility of the movement.
The contradictions of the CPP’s political strategy became starkly evident during the 2016 presidential election. Far from opposing Rodrigo Duterte—a figure with a history of collaboration with revolutionary forces—the CPP and Sison endorsed him. Duterte, himself a former leftist activist, had expressed support for socialism and disdain for oligarchs during his campaign. In a widely publicized Skype call with Sison, Duterte promised to adopt socialist policies and even hinted at Sison’s return to the Philippines. However, after Duterte's election, Sison remained in exile, raising questions about his commitment to the cause he professes to lead.
Duterte initially made overtures for peace, granting amnesty to rebels willing to lay down arms and initiating peace talks with the CPP-NPA. Despite initial optimism, these talks repeatedly collapsed under suspicious circumstances. For example, while negotiations were ongoing, NPA rebels ambushed and killed unarmed soldiers, prompting Duterte to designate the CPP-NPA as a terrorist organization. A similar pattern unfolded during the COVID-19 pandemic, when NPA attacks disrupted relief operations, undermining yet another round of peace talks. These incidents bear an uncanny resemblance to the tactics of U.S.-backed imperialist fronts, such as the Guaidó group in Venezuela, which sabotaged negotiations with the Maduro government.
The Duterte administration’s repeated attempts at reconciliation stand in sharp contrast to the CPP’s apparent determination to sabotage every opportunity for peace. This raises a crucial question: who benefits from these acts of self-sabotage? Rather than advancing the anti-imperialist struggle, the CPP’s actions have often played into the hands of the very imperialist forces it claims to oppose. For the Filipino proletariat, this history of betrayal and mismanagement serves as a sobering reminder of the necessity for genuine, class-based revolutionary leadership—leadership that the CPP, under its current trajectory, has repeatedly failed to provide.
Conclusion: The Philippine Struggle from a Marxist-Leninist Perspective
To my young, fiery, and energetic comrades brimming with revolutionary zeal, I understand that posts like these can elicit reactions ranging from laughter to misplaced indignation. But let us channel that energy into constructive dialogue. The arguments I anticipate—some predictable, others emotional—deserve a rigorous and dialectical response. Allow me to address and debunk them systematically, as we must always seek clarity over dogma.
“You have no idea how profoundly offensive this post is to me and to any other Filipino.”
Comrades, if offense is your first response, you may have wandered into the wrong discussion. Offense, while a natural emotion, cannot substitute for analysis. You may not know my proximity to the struggle in the Philippines, and you’ll find no reason for me to defend my position based on feelings. Our task is to engage with facts, material conditions, and the lived experiences of the masses—not to wade into moralistic outrage.
Moreover, let’s address a central misconception: just because you’re offended doesn’t mean your perspective represents the collective sentiment of the Filipino people. If you took the time to speak to the masses—as I have—you’d find that many Filipinos are far more offended by the CPP-NPA’s tactics and their exploitative recruitment practices, particularly among students, than by critiques of their movement. Among the workers and peasants, the CPP-NPA is often regarded as a disruptive force, divorced from the genuine Mass Line and reliant on a base largely confined to certain academic circles.
“Reading about a labor activist being killed by the government in their own home is a weekly thing here.”
Comrades, such tragic occurrences cannot be denied, and they warrant both condemnation and careful investigation. But let us be clear: these incidents, heartbreaking as they are, do not automatically validate the CPP-NPA as a legitimate representative of the proletariat. Tragedy alone does not imbue an organization with revolutionary credibility. **Whispers** (Which, in this case, the CPP-NPA lacks entirely).
The CPP-NPA's decades-long strategy has failed to resonate with the majority of the Filipino working class and peasantry. Rather than broadening their support base through genuine engagement with the masses, they have alienated themselves further by engaging in tactics such as extortion, arson, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Revolution is not justified by endless violence for its own sake; it must have clear objectives, rooted in the material needs of the masses.
As Marxist-Leninists, we are not blind to the repression labour activists face, but we must also recognize that the CPP-NPA’s failures are not excused by state violence. Their approach does not reflect the disciplined strategy of successful revolutionary movements but instead reeks of adventurism, which has consistently alienated potential allies and reinforced their isolation.
“But I can’t really think you can justify criticizing them for ‘arson’ and ‘terror’ when THEY’RE LITERALLY WAGING A REVOLUTION against a bourgeois government. Did you expect Lenin, Mao, or Ho Chi Minh to just have tea parties with the capitalists?”
Your invocation of Lenin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of their strategies. While none of these revolutionary leaders shied away from necessary conflict, they always prioritized the Mass Line, working tirelessly to unite the people behind their cause.
Lenin, for example, understood the importance of tactical flexibility. During the period of dual power following the February Revolution, he worked within the framework of the provisional government, patiently building support for the Bolsheviks until the conditions for revolution were ripe. Mao, similarly, negotiated alliances with the Guomindang when it was strategically advantageous, and his strategy of protracted people’s war was rooted in the material conditions of China at the time.
By contrast, the CPP-NPA’s reliance on terror tactics and indiscriminate violence undermines their claim to represent the proletariat. Revolution is not an excuse for adventurism or nihilism. It is a disciplined and methodical process that seeks to build power among the masses, not alienate them.
As Lenin said:
“The greatest, perhaps the only danger to the genuine revolutionary is that of exaggerated revolutionism, ignoring the limits and conditions in which revolutionary methods are appropriate and can be successfully employed. True revolutionaries have mostly come a cropper when they began to write “revolution” with a capital R, to elevate “revolution” to something almost divine, to lose their heads, to lose the ability to reflect, weigh and ascertain in the coolest and most dispassionate manner at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere of action you must act in a revolutionary manner, and at what moment, under what circumstances and in which sphere you must turn to reformist action. True revolutionaries will perish (not that they will be defeated from outside, but that their work will suffer internal collapse) only if they abandon their sober outlook and take it into their heads that the “great, victorious, world” revolution can and must solve all problems in a revolutionary manner under all circumstances and in all spheres of action. If they do this, their doom is certain. Whoever gets such ideas into his head is lost because he has foolish ideas about a fundamental problem; and in a fierce war (and revolution is the fiercest sort of war) the penalty for folly is defeat. What grounds are there for assuming that the “great, victorious, world” revolution can and must employ only revolutionary methods? There are none at all.”
“The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism”, V.I Lenin (5 November, 1921)
The CPP-NPA’s refusal to heed this lesson has been their undoing. Their actions reflect not a commitment to Marxist-Leninist principles but a reckless disregard for the material realities of the Filipino struggle. Comrades, the Filipino people deserve a revolutionary movement that genuinely serves their interests, not one mired in adventurism and ideological dogma. The CPP-NPA’s failure to build a broad-based, disciplined movement rooted in the Mass Line is a betrayal of the very principles they claim to uphold. Revolution is not about empty slogans or senseless violence. It is about building power, strengthening sovereignty, and improving the material conditions of the masses. Until the CPP-NPA rectifies its approach—or is replaced by a more principled movement—it will remain a cautionary tale of what happens when revolutionaries lose sight of their ultimate goal: liberation for the people.
“And have you ever stopped to think whether or not the claims of arson and terror against civilians is even a valid claim?”
Yes, I have, and I would not make such claims without thorough evidence. To accuse me of lacking documentation is to misunderstand the basis of my arguments. I have carefully analysed the actions of the CPP-NPA and documented their attacks on civilian infrastructure and their often-reckless tactics. These actions are not in line with revolutionary strategy; they are counterproductive and only serve to alienate potential allies. If we are to support a revolutionary movement, it must be one that unites the masses, not one that engages in senseless violence and terror against them.
As Marxists, we must be materialists, and we must base our analysis on facts, not on ideological posturing or abstract slogans. If the CPP-NPA is truly the vanguard of the Filipino revolution, it must prove itself through discipline, popular support, and the strategic use of revolutionary tactics. Until then, their failure to do so remains an undeniable fact.
“This is where we part ways. The CPP-NPA is Marxist-Leninist.”
While the CPP-NPA may claim to be Marxist-Leninist, the issue lies not in their self-designation but in their practices, their disconnect from the real needs of the Filipino masses, and their historical trajectory. A movement can call itself Marxist-Leninist, but if it fails to align its actions with the principles of Marxism-Leninism—namely, the advancement of the material conditions of the working class and the peasantry—then it cannot be considered a legitimate representative of the proletarian struggle. The CPP-NPA has proven to be ineffective and has regularly operated in ways that benefit the interests of imperialism, particularly in their undermining of national sovereignty and alignment with US imperialist narratives. They have failed to learn from the lessons of past revolutionary movements, such as the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries, the Shining Path in Peru, and others that lost their way.
“It’s what makes their incompetence even worse — their responsibility as party the workers and peasants rely on is too big for them to keep failing as they have.”
Exactly. This is a point that must not be ignored. The responsibility of a revolutionary party is immense, and when they fail, it is not just their credibility that suffers but the very future of the working class and peasantry. The constant failures of the CPP-NPA have undermined their support and have led many in the Philippines to disown them, as the masses are increasingly alienated by their incompetence. If a revolutionary organization cannot maintain a solid connection with the masses, then its ability to lead a successful revolution becomes all the more unlikely. History has shown that revolutionary movements that disconnect from their base, whether in theory or in practice, ultimately fail.
“If ever the CPP-NPA succeeds one day in its revolution against the bourgeois government and establishes a workers’ state, it will still be a net positive for international socialism, and I reckon the party’s relationship with China will also cool down and begin to become less antagonistic once that happens.”
This is an idealistic projection with little basis in the current reality. The CPP-NPA has shown no inclination to revise its flawed strategies, and its anti-China stance makes it highly unlikely that it will align itself with the international proletarian movement, which includes a recognition of the necessity of a united front against imperialism. The idea that they will suddenly change their behaviour after achieving power is naive, as there is no evidence to suggest that they will abandon their current practices or anti-China rhetoric. The reality is that the CPP-NPA's internal contradictions and strategic errors make their success unlikely, and their adherence to outdated and ineffective strategies will continue to undermine any potential progress toward a true workers' state.
"China sees that the CPP-NPA’s history of failure and chooses to support the bourgeois government instead. That’s all there is to it."
Here we encounter a fundamental misreading of the situation. China’s relationship with the Philippines is based on a strategic calculation—one that doesn’t necessarily align with the interests of the Filipino proletariat but with its own regional and international objectives. The CPP-NPA, as a revolutionary force, has failed to build the kind of mass support needed to pose a serious challenge to the capitalist state, but this is due to their own organizational flaws, not simply external interference.
However, China’s support for the Philippine government is not a reflection of alignment with the global proletarian movement but with its own national interests. As Marxists-Leninists, we must recognize that while China’s rise challenges US imperialism in some ways, its own capitalist system poses contradictions for international socialist movements. Support for national liberation movements must be measured by whether the struggle aligns with proletarian interests and not by simplistic alliances based on anti-imperialism alone.
“I confidently speak for the rest of the Philippine Left”
This claim oversimplifies and obscures the dynamic realities of the Philippine Left. The Left in the Philippines is far from monolithic; it is a mosaic of ideologies, strategies, and factions, each grappling with the contradictions of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society. While the CPP-NPA often positions itself as the torchbearer of revolution, the truth is far more complex and sobering: their approach has systematically alienated the very masses they claim to champion.
The Filipino proletariat and peasantry—the backbone of any genuine revolutionary struggle—have been abandoned by a vanguard party that has failed to embody the discipline, clarity, and mass-centeredness required of a Marxist-Leninist movement. Instead of fostering unity and advancing the class struggle, the CPP-NPA's tactics have fragmented the revolutionary landscape, leaving the people disillusioned and vulnerable to counter-revolutionary narratives.
The masses are speaking, and the data reflects their sentiment. A staggering 79% of Filipinos have expressed "much confidence" in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to neutralize the communist rebellion. The CPP-NPA’s guerrilla fronts, once numbering 89, have withered to a mere 7 as of 2024, with two more on the brink of dissolution. By August 2024, only five weakened fronts remain—a damning indictment of a movement that has lost its footing, its vision, and its connection to the people.
But the crisis of the Philippine Left is not solely the fault of the CPP-NPA. It is a reflection of broader failures: the inability to construct a clear and compelling revolutionary alternative, the persistent meddling of imperialist forces, and the economic exploitation that keeps the masses in chains. It is a testament to the need for a new kind of leadership—a vanguard that is uncompromisingly committed to the Mass Line, to uniting the people around a concrete program of national liberation and socialist transformation.
The choice facing the Filipino people is not a false dichotomy between Duterte and the CPP-NPA. It is a choice between remaining mired in the contradictions imposed by imperialist domination and oligarchic rule or forging a new path of revolutionary struggle rooted in the principles of Marxism-Leninism. This requires a movement that learns from past mistakes, that prioritizes the needs and aspirations of the masses, and that resists the temptation to retreat into dogma or opportunism.
The future of the Philippine revolution lies in the hands of those who dare to imagine and build a better world—those who understand that the failures of the past are lessons, not verdicts. It is time to turn these lessons into action, to reignite the flame of revolutionary optimism, and to reclaim the trust and confidence of the Filipino people. Only then can the revolutionary struggle in the Philippines rise from its ashes, more resolute and more connected to the masses than ever before.
Finial Thoughts
As Marxist-Leninists, our purpose is neither to pass moral judgment nor to indulge in abstract ethical debates detached from the realities of class struggle. Instead, we are tasked with analysing material conditions, uncovering concrete truths, and utilizing these truths as tools to further the revolutionary cause and the construction of socialism. It is through this lens that we examine the CPP-NPA, its actions, and its ideological trajectory. When analysed materially, the facts reveal a movement that consistently undermines its own purported goals and discredits its claims to represent the proletariat.
Firstly, the CPP’s founder and ideological leader, Jose Maria Sison, openly endorses the Shining Path of Peru—a failed and discredited movement whose strategy of indiscriminate violence alienated the masses and led to its collapse. This uncritical support reflects a troubling ideological alignment with tactics that have historically resulted in isolation from the working class rather than its mobilization.
The CPP-NPA’s operational strategy, as outlined in its own documents, prioritizes acts of terror, including arson, sabotage, and ambushes. These are not incidental but form an integral part of its platform, aiming to transition from a "strategic defensive" to a "strategic offensive." Far from inspiring proletarian solidarity, these tactics have alienated the Filipino masses, the overwhelming majority of whom support Duterte’s campaign against the CPP-NPA.
Furthermore, the CPP’s political positions frequently align with the objectives of U.S. imperialism. From expressing support for Hong Kong separatists to issuing calls for American intervention against the Duterte administration, the CPP demonstrates a concerning tendency to adopt comprador positions that serve imperialist interests. This alignment is exacerbated by its appeal to U.S. workers and organizations to influence US foreign policy, framing their struggle in terms that mirror imperialist narratives rather than proletarian internationalism.
The composition of the CPP-NPA’s ranks further underscores its detachment from the masses. It heavily relies on youth recruitment from universities, with numerous documented cases of coercion and exploitation, leading to the emergence of parent organizations focused on retrieving children sent to fight in the mountains. These practices erode the party’s legitimacy and deepen its estrangement from the working class and peasantry.
Perhaps most damning are the CPP-NPA’s numerous acts of undisciplined violence and outright brutality. From reckless attacks that harm civilians to heinous crimes such as the rape and murder of a young comrade, these actions not only betray revolutionary ethics but also delegitimize the CPP-NPA as a genuine vehicle for proletarian liberation. Such incidents expose either a counterrevolutionary agenda cloaked in revolutionary rhetoric or a level of internal disarray that renders the organization incapable of effectively serving the proletariat.
In the final analysis, regardless of the CPP-NPA’s stated aims, its actions and trajectory reveal a movement disconnected from the masses, undisciplined in its operations, and aligned with strategies that inflame and fragment rather than unify. For revolutionaries committed to the Marxist-Leninist path, the CPP-NPA stands as a cautionary example of the consequences of abandoning proletarian leadership, class struggle, and revolutionary discipline. It is not a vehicle for the proletariat's struggle, and its practices actively hinder the broader cause of socialism in the Philippines.
The reality of the Philippine struggle cannot be reduced to simplistic terms. The CPP-NPA, despite its Marxist-Leninist claims, has failed to build the necessary support base to challenge the bourgeois state, and its continued alignment with petty-bourgeois demagogues undermines its revolutionary potential. As Marxist-Leninists, our task is not to support one side uncritically but to understand the material conditions, the balance of forces, and the long-term goals of revolution. The Filipino working class deserves a true vanguard party—one that can learn from the mistakes of the past, forge alliances with other progressive forces, and challenge imperialism and capitalism effectively. Until that happens, we must engage critically with all forces in the struggle for national sovereignty and socialist transformation.
In a Marxist-Leninist analysis, it is essential to understand that there can be no further meaningful discussion on this matter. The facts are clear: the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF) have long ceased to represent a genuine Marxist-Leninist vanguard. Rather, these organizations have devolved into a factional and opportunistic group dominated by cliques, led by individuals who have become more interested in their own enrichment than in the revolutionary cause. The ideology of these organizations, while claiming to uphold the ideals of Marxism-Leninism, has been vulgarized and manipulated to serve the personal interests of the party leaders, turning the once-promising movement into an instrument of petty-bourgeois self-aggrandizement.
This deviation from the core principles of Marxism-Leninism is evident in the party’s abandonment of the Mass Line, the central tenet that should guide any true vanguard party. The Mass Line, developed by Mao Zedong, dictates that the revolution must be based on the participation and leadership of the masses, and that the Party must deeply root itself in the daily struggles of the proletariat and peasantry. However, the CPP-NPA-NDF, in its current form, no longer adheres to these practices. Instead of being an organization of the working class and peasantry, it has become a party of cliques and self-serving elites, further removed from the people they claim to represent. The Party’s leadership has accumulated wealth and privilege, living lives of luxury unimaginable to the proletariat they purport to fight for.
The results of this degeneration are devastating. Not only have these party leaders enriched themselves at the expense of the revolutionary masses, but they have also caused irreparable damage to the social relations and productive forces of the Philippines. The Party has failed to advance a coherent, practical program for social transformation. Instead, they have perpetuated a culture of demagoguery, where empty promises and revolutionary rhetoric are used to recruit young people and idealistic activists, only for them to be abandoned and betrayed once they are no longer useful. These recruits, many of whom entered the movement hoping to create a better life for themselves and for the Filipino people, have been led astray, their lives ruined in the process. They have been sacrificed for the egos and power struggles of a leadership that has no genuine commitment to revolutionary ideals or the needs of the Filipino working class.
It is crucial that we, as Marxist-Leninists, expose the true nature of the CPP-NPA-NDF. The image they project to the international communist movement is nothing more than a facade. They have successfully duped many into believing they are still a vanguard party dedicated to the principles of Marxism-Leninism. But in reality, they are nothing more than a party of petty-bourgeois demagogues, appropriating the language of revolution to consolidate their own power and wealth, while the workers and peasants they claim to serve continue to suffer. This must be made clear to all international communists, especially those in the West, who may have been misled by the party’s propaganda.
It is not enough to simply accept the narrative the CPP-NPA-NDF presents about themselves. We must engage in a thorough, in-depth analysis of their history and their actions, stripping away the layers of idealism and exposing the reality beneath. This task is especially urgent because more and more Western Marxists, some of whom wield significant influence within their respective communities, are beginning to propagate incorrect and misguided positions about the CPP-NPA-NDF and Philippine politics in general. These individuals fail to engage with the complex political realities of the country, reducing the struggle to simplistic, one-sided interpretations that ignore the deeper contradictions at play.
To understand the true dynamics of the Philippine political landscape, it is essential to study the country’s history—both pre-colonial and post-colonial—in depth. Without this historical context, one risks falling into the trap of idealism and misrepresentation. The Philippines is currently undergoing an unprecedented political struggle, where anti-colonial nationalist forces clash with US-backed liberal factions. To discuss the country’s politics without fully understanding this struggle is to engage in superficial analysis. This historical understanding is the key to grasping the nature of the ongoing political conflict and the complex relationships between the various factions involved.
In conclusion, any analysis of Philippine politics must be grounded in a rigorous study of the country’s history and an honest evaluation of the political forces at play. The CPP-NPA-NDF’s betrayal of Marxist-Leninist principles and their failure to lead the revolution must be openly acknowledged. Only through such an honest and critical approach can we begin to understand the challenges facing the Filipino people and the potential for building a genuine revolutionary movement in the future. The struggle for socialism in the Philippines is far from over, but it will only succeed if we are willing to confront the historical realities and the current political realities head-on, rejecting the false narratives propagated by those who have betrayed the revolution.
Citations
Assassination Policies and Revolutionary Movements
The Post-1992 Communist Party of the Philippines and its Policy of “Death Condemnations.” Libcom.
Former NPA Mass Supporters Hold Peace Rally, Withdraw Support from NPA in MisOr. Facebook
Historical Context
A Short History of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. Retrieved from:
The First Naxal: An Authorized Biography of Kanu Sanyal by Paul Bappaditya.
Great Achievements of the CPP in 50 Years of Waging Revolution. Communist Party of the Philippines.
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!
INTERVIEW WITH CHAIRMAN GONZALO, Central Committee, Communist Party of Peru, 1988.
Philippine History, Classes and Crisis, and United Front: A Review by JOSE MARIA SISON.
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, THE UNITED FRONT IN CULTURAL WORK, October 30, 1944.
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru: “Interview With Chairman Gonzalo,” July 1, 1988.
V. I. Lenin, The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism.
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Peru: “Interview With Chairman Gonzalo,” July 1, 1988.
Mindanao Business Groups Vow Support for Military vs. CPP-NPA Extortion Activities. Manila Bulletin.
NPA on Brink of Collapse: Former Rebel Leaders. Philippine News Agency.
Extortion and Financial Activities
CPP-NPA ‘Politburo’ Wealthy at Expense of Deceived Guerrillas. PNA.
Ex-Rebel Talks About CPP-NPA-NDF Extortion Process in Elections. Tinig ng Kabisayaan.
CPP-NPA-NDF Exploit IPs to Get Foreign Donations. NTF-ELCAC.
“Bakit Sila Na Sa Congreso?” — National Democratic Front (NDF). Facebook
Philippines: Freeze Order on CPP, NPA Bank Accounts. KYC360.
Help Stop Funds Flow to CPP-NPA, Pinoys in US Urged. Philippine News Agency.
AFP: CPP, NDF, NPA Can’t Be Treated ‘Differently, Separately’ from the Other. Inquirer.
Tax the Communists on Their Source of Funds; Part I. Manila Standard
Tax the Communists on Their Source of Funds; Part II. Manila Standard
Terrorism and Atrocities
Not an Enemy? CPP-NPA Killed 50,000 Filipinos — and Continues to Kill. Manila Times
NPAs Hunt Us Like Wild Animals: Manobo Tribesman. Philippine News Agency (PNA).
Matigsalug Tribe Freed from NPA; Holds 1st Flag Raising Rite. Philippine News Agency (PNA)
1989 Rano Massacre Remembered with Monument Unveiling. Philippine News Agency (PNA).
HR Violations Found in NPA Killing of Surigao Tribal Leader. Philippine News Agency (PNA).
16 Dead in Philippines as Manobos Clash with NPA Rebels. Arab News
46 Killed by Philippine Rebels in Ambush of an Army Patrol. The New York Times.
2 Civilians Killed, 1 Soldier Wounded in Las Navas Ambush. Leyte Samar Daily.
NPA Rebels Attack 3 Mining Firms in Surigao del Norte. GMA Network
6 NPA Rebels Killed in Attack on Japanese Banana Plantation. Inquirer.
NPA Rebels Burn Road Construction Equipment in Quezon. Inquirer.
Army Men in Davao City Vow to Protect Journalists. GMA Network.
NPA Rebel Kills Agusan Norte Farmer. Philippine News Agency.
Samar Farmer Killed, Village Official Hurt in NPA Attack. Philippine News Agency.
NPA Commander Involved in 2006 ‘Inopacan Massacre’ Falls in Bohol. Tribune.
Suspect Linked to Inopacan Massacre Arrested in Bohol. SunStar.
Legal and Alleged Misconduct
Ex-CPP Cadres, HOOC, Haul Joma, Elago Before DOJ. Pinoy Exposed
Sexual Abuse, Rape Rampant Inside CPP-NPA-NDF: Ex-Cadre. PNA.
CPP-NPA ‘Squad Leader’ Charged with Rape by ‘Ex-Member’ — DOJ. Manila Bulletin.
Some NPA Officials Raped Female Insurgents, Former Rebel Claims. ABS-CBN.
DOJ to Indict Ranking CPP/NPA Exec for 9 Counts of Rape. Abogado.
Help Me Put NPA Rapist to Jail, Ex-Child Warrior to Liza, Angel. Philippine News Agency (PNA).
Ex-Child Warrior in Leyte Files Rape Case vs. NPA Leader. Philippine News Agency (PNA)
CHR Slams NPA for Alleged Rape of Minors, Asks Gov’t to Resolve Issue. Inquirer
Court Orders Arrest of Jose Maria Sison, 30 Other Leftist Leaders. Philippine Star
CPP-NPA-NDF Related News. Armed Forces of the Philippines Civil Relations Service
Former High-Ranking CPP-NPA-NDF Officials to Expose Front Groups’ Lies About “Red-Tagging.” YouTube
Child Recruitment and Exploitation
CPP-NPA Maintain Policy of Using ‘Child Soldiers’. Pinoy Exposed.
NPAs Recruiting Child Soldiers in MisOr — CHR Report. CDODev.
Army Continues Fight vs NPA on Child Recruitment. Kalinaw News.
Recruitment of Child Combatants Mark of NPA Desperation: Official. Mindanao Times
Philippines Strives to End Recruitment of Child Soldiers. Relief Web
Army Troops Rescued NPA Child Warrior, Slams Reds for Illegal Recruitment. Kalinaw News
NPA Torches Bulacan Tourist Site, Demands ‘Revolutionary Tax’. Manila Times
2020: Fight Against Reds’ Atrocities, Exploitation of Youth. Philippine News Agency (PNA).
These Parents Say Left-Leaning Groups Kidnapped Their Kids. Interaksyon