Jose Maria Sison | Chief Political Consultant | National Democratic Front Of The Philippines
August 13, 2021
INTERVIEW WITH PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON
ON THE PHILIPPINES, US, CHINA AND OTHER MATTERS
BY CARLO FRANCISCO OF RED SAILS
Good day Professor Sison. I writing for Red Sails (https://redsails.org). We are a small Marxist-Leninist publication and are interested in your thoughts on a number of matters related to the Philippines, China, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. We heard from the PRWC Twitter account that you would be interested in sharing your perspective.
Without further ado, here are the questions.
1. Let’s start with recent developments in the Philippines. Under President Duterte, the Philippine government has had one of the most ineffective COVID-19 responses in Asia — from slowing the spread, to minimizing economic fallout from lockdowns, to vaccine deployment. In the meantime, this administration has also ramped up its state-sponsored red-tagging effort with the Anti-Terrorism Law of 2020, which gave legal backing to the already ongoing practice of cracking down on various social justice and human rights organizations. Previously, you have pointed out the similarities between the Duterte and Marcos regimes, in particular their open embrace of state terror. How is the situation different today? In particular, what is your analysis as to the material and social conditions that have prevented a mass anti-fascist uprising like what we saw with the People Power Revolution?
JMS: I agree with you that Duterte has failed to adopt and implement the necessary measures to slow the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, to minimize the economic fallout from the lockdowns and to promptly acquire and deploy the vaccines. In the first place, he ignored the advice of health experts to restrict travel from China and allowed the pandemic to spread from December 2019 to March 2020 by letting more than 500,000 Chinese tourists and casino players.
The main concern of Duterte during the pandemic has been to steal public money and push forward his scheme of fascist dictatorship. He caused the congressional appropriation of hundreds of millions of pesos and has increased the public debt by two trillion pesos supposedly for mass testing, acquisition of vaccines and medical equipment and economic assistance for those who lost their jobs and other means of livelihood. But most of the money has been wasted on bureaucratic and military corruption, with Duterte taking the lion’s share.
He has put generals, instead of health experts in the national task force in charge of fighting the pandemic. He has militarized the lockdowns in order to intimidate the people; railroaded the legislation of the so-called Anti-Terror Law of 2020; increased the budget for the military and police in the name of anti-communism and anti-terrorism; and has escalated both the bogus war on drugs and counterrevolutionary campaigns of state terrorism in both urban and rural areas.
The Marcos and Duterte regimes are quite similar in unleashing state terrorism against the people. But the difference is that Duterte within the span of 5 years has done far worse in extrajudicial killings than Marcos. Marcos was held accountable for 3500 extrajudicial killings. Duterte has scored 33,000 extrajudicial killings. And the economic, social and political crisis of the ruling system is now far worse than during the time of Marcos. The armed revolutionary movement has therefore become much stronger. Also, we should not underestimate the consequences of the health crisis and the accountability of Duterte for this.
The people are outraged and are desirous of revolutionary change. So many people are joining the people’s army and the urban underground, according to reliable reports. Despite the restrictions by the military and police on mass gatherings, mass protest actions are intensifying and spreading The volcano is already rumbling and is bound to explode soon, especially if Duterte insists on using foul means to prolong his stay in power beyond 2022.
2. The Philippines also has elections coming up in 2022. (I promise this will be the only question about bourgeois elections.) Duterte stands as an obstacle for the resumption of peace talks with the CPP-NPA. Would any foreseeable electoral outcome open up the possibility of a diplomatic approach?
JMS: Duterte is confident that he can get his daughter Sara become president and himself as vice president through the 2022 presidential elections because he controls the national vote count through his Comelec appointees and through the TIM Corp which is owned by him and his crony Dennis Uy and is the Philippine counterpart of Smartmatic. He can do again what he did in rigging the 2019 mid-term elections in order to capture both houses of Congress.
And he is ready to declare a pseudo-revolutionary government before or after the 2022 elections in order to counter the possible mass uprisings of the people as in 1986 against the fascist dictator Marcos. There is yet no clear indication whether the electoral opposition has succeeded in persuading the US to require Smartmatic to follow definite measures to ensure a clean vote count. Otherwise there will be more social turmoil for the ruling system if the elections are fraudulent and manipulated under the current conditions of state terrorism.
If Duterte stays in power, with his daughter as his stooge, there will certainly be no resumption of the peace negotiations. In response, the revolutionary movement will be focused on waging the people’s war. If the electoral opposition wins in the 2022 elections, there is a possibility that the peace negotiations will be resumed. But we have to know first who will be the new president and how different is he or she from previous reactionary presidents who pretended to be for peace negotiations and yet were interested only in the capitulation or military suppression of the revolutionary movement.
In view of the rapidly worsening crisis of the world capitalist system and that of the Philippine ruling system, the conditions are increasingly favorable for the people’s democratic revolution through protracted people’s war. If the new president does not like to negotiate a just peace, then there is no choice for the people and their revolutionary forces but to keep on fighting without any distraction by peace negotiations.
If the new president seriously wants peace negotiations, then these can be resumed in accordance with the GRP-NDFP Joint Declaration which sets forth the aims and purposes of the negotiations, the substantive agenda of basic economic, social, political and constitutional reforms and the methods of negotiating and drafting the comprehensive agreements.
3. One aspect of Philippine politics that cannot be ignored is its position in the great power competition between the United States and China. You have made clear that you share the analysis of the CPP and other Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties — that China and the United States are locked in an intensifying inter-imperialist rivalry, and that the only way out for the Philippines is to assert its sovereignty and free itself from domination by both Chinese and US capital. Today, the US enforces sanctions and other limits to the development of socialist states like Cuba and the DPRK, transitional states with socialist governments like Venezuela and Bolivia, and non-socialist states like Iran. On the other hand, the governments of these nations have engaged in extensive diplomatic and economic relations with China’s government, which has helped them survive while under siege. If, say, elements of the NDF gained control within the existing government, or if the CPP established a revolutionary government, it is likely that the Philippines would similarly be subject to economic attack by the US and its allies. Would you recommend that such a government reject a tactical alliance with China in this scenario, and why?
JMS: You are correct in assuming that the CPP and the revolutionary movement of the people will consistently assert, defend and advance Philippine national sovereign and territorial integrity. You are also correct in anticipating the violent reaction of US imperialism to the revolutionary movement when it shall come to power in the Philippines or have a leading role in a coalition government. There is therefore a need for the revolutionary forces and the people to avail of proletarian internationalism and international anti-imperialist solidarity.
If the revolutionary movement wins political power in the Philippines or the CPP becomes the leading force against the US being the No. 1 imperialist power over the Philippines, the Philippine revolutionary government will try to persuade China to respect Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 2016 judgment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration with regard to the West Philippine Sea and will respect and support China’s national sovereignty over Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Daoyu islands, Tibet and Xinjiang.
Even now, the revolutionary movement of the Filipino people observes and appreciates how China supports and assists countries and peoples that are resisting US imperialism and are the target of imperialist economic and military blockades and all sorts of sanctions. It sees the possibility of diplomatically settling with China any serious problems to achieve better relations and higher aims. As a matter of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principle, the CPP has been critical of how China has become blatantly capitalist since 1978. But party-to-party relations are distinguishable from state-to-state relations.
4. Regarding the specific issue of maritime territory in the West Philippine Sea, the latest incident just this year concerned Chinese fishing vessels anchoring near the Whitsun Reef, a part of the Spratly Islands widely considered to be a Philippine territory in those islands. The Chinese government, for their part, also considers this an issue of sovereignty, and their operations are likely spurred on by the US’s continuing presence in these waters, which together with their bases in neighboring countries might be said to form a “noose” around that country. Do you see a realistic pathway to a resolution among the Philippines, China, and the other Asian countries involved? Can such an issue even be resolved through diplomatic means?
JMS: In my answer to your previous question, I have already asserted the sovereign and maritime rights of the Philippines over its exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf in the West Philippines and pointed to the need for China to respect these rights, the UNCLOS and the 2016 judgment of the PAC. I have also pointed out that through diplomatic negotiations China can signify its respect for Philippine sovereign and maritime rights over the West Philippine Sea. On the Philippine side, there is no problem about recognizing and supporting China where it legitimately asserts its national sovereignty.
But now and insofar as China continues to disrespect Philippine national sovereign and maritime rights over the West Philippine Sea, the revolutionary movement considers as positive and necessary for all countries to keep the high seas of the South China Sea open for free navigation and reject the false and baseless claim of China that it owns 90 per cent of the entire South China Sea. It is also positive and necessary for the Philippines to demand the withdrawal of China from the artificial islands and military bases that it has made in the West Philippine Sea, pay rent for the duration of the illegal occupation and pay for the damage and destruction of the marine features and environment.
5. An analysis of the United States and China as an inter-imperialist conflict can lead one to the difficult position where denouncing one country’s policy works as a tacit endorsement of the other’s. One example is the CPP’s endorsement of the Hong Kong protest movement in 2020 (a post was briefly on its website before being removed) — there is evidence that some of the civil society groups that drove this movement had material support from the “soft” wings of American regime change apparatus, like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). What does the CPP (and its sympathizers worldwide) need to do to ensure that its “pox on both houses” position does not serve imperialist ends?
JMS: It is just and proper for the CPP and the Filipino people to criticize and condemn the all-round domination of the Philippines by US imperialism and at the same time China’s aggressive transgression of Philippine sovereign and maritime rights in the West Philippine Sea. The issue is clear against each of the two imperialist powers. The CPP and Filipino people can continue to recognize China’s national sovereignty over Hong Kong and distinguish it from the autonomy and democratic rights of the Hong Kong people and the transition measures agreed upon by the Chinese and British states.
In expressing support for the autonomy and democratic rights of the Hong Kong people, the CPP and the Filipino people do not deny the China’s national sovereignty over Hong Kong as qualified by the transition measures agreed to by China itself. Neither do they become responsible for or become identical to all sorts of people and organizations that also support the autonomy and democratic rights of the Hong Kong people, including those US entities that wish to make Hong Kong independent of and hostile to China.
All proletarian revolutionaries are critical of monopoly capitalism and all imperialist countries. But they must consider and evaluate the economic and political circumstances, the differences and contradictions among the imperialist powers. The Bolsheviks were able to take advantage of the contradictions and shifting alliances of the imperialist powers. The Soviet Union was able to join the Allied Powers against the Axis powers which were fascist and aggressive. A socialist country can maintain and develop diplomatic and trade relations with all countries, irrespective of ideology and social system.
6. July 2021 marked the 100-year anniversary of the Communist Party of China (CPC). You have previously made clear that your stance is that the CPC has undergone a revisionist counterrevolution from 1976 onwards. You have also stated that it is only a matter of time before the CPC sheds its branding as a communist party, and that the only hope for the Chinese proletariat is a new communist party that reasserts the primacy of Mao Zedong Thought. It is true that the role of the Chinese party-state somewhat diminished in society after 1976, with the injection of capital introducing contradictions that were not seen in China under Mao. This also fueled a number of new “left” movements within China. Yet in the years since 2012, with the rise of Xi Jinping, there has been something of a reassessment or reappraisal of the CPC leadership, especially among younger left-wing Chinese citizens. With Xi’s anti-corruption drive seen as widely justified and necessary to clean out the corrupt bureaucracy created by Reform and Opening Up, with his strengthening of Marxist education in schools, and with his creative maneuvers to reassert party control over even privately held firms, Xi is starting to look like he’s addressing at least some of the contradictions created since 1976. What do you make of these developments? In your eyes, do they represent a return to a socialist path? If not, what concrete steps would convince you that they have turned away from revisionism and returned to the revolutionary road?
JMS: I do not think that Xi Jinping has done anything since 2012 to undo the comprehensive and thoroughgoing capitalist restoration on China since 1978 when the Chinese revisionists or capitalist roaders used their seizure of political power in the October 1976 counterrevolutionary coup to undertake the full restoration of capitalism in China. The anti-corruption drive so-called has been carried out at best to control the rampant corruption at every level of the Chinese bureaucracy, the mountains of bad debts made by state and private corporations and the scandalous sale of land by local governments to private corporations. As in the revisionist-ruled Soviet Union, it was quite easy for the anti-Marxists to pretend carrying out Marxist education only to misrepresent and ridicule Marxist theory and practice and play up the anti-socialist and capitalist-oriented reforms.
I suggest that you read the annotations of the Communist Party of the Philippines on the speech of Xi Jinping in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China. The speech reveals how much Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong that Xi Jin Ping has. He consistently refers to the CPC as the party of the entire people and never as party of the proletariat and the people. He is quite skillful at avoiding any reference to the CPC as the advanced detachment of the proletariat, the socialist state as a class dictatorship of the proletarian and proletarian internationalism even in the period of Mao. The CPP annotations try to critique many major points. They can somehow help you in answering the question whether the anti-corruption campaign of Xi Jinping and his other reported actions will undo the comprehensive and deep going restoration and development of private and state monopoly capitalism by the phony communist party.
I also attach hereto my long article, “Influences and Relations between China and the National Democratic Movement in the Philippines” by way of answering your questions. This can give you a clear view of my summing up and analysis of the background, course and defeat of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution by the Dengist counterrevolutionary coup in October 1976, the arrest and mass expulsion of those CPC cadres and members who supported the GPCR, the proclamation of the blatantly anti-socialist and capitalist reforms and opening up for China’s integration with the world capitalist system in 1978 and the collaboration of US and Chinese monopoly capitalism in promoting and carrying out the neoliberal policy until their recent sharpening of inter-imperialist contradictions.
In 1979 the US started its diplomatic relations with China, after making preparations for these since the Nixon visit to China in 1972. US and China carried out in earnest their partnership in promoting the neoliberal policy of imperialist globalization in the 1980s onward. But being cautious in giving concessions to China and pressuring it to bend further, the US promoted sweat shop operations in China, the delivery of low-end technology and Chinese exports of garments, shoes and other consumer goods to the US market. By 1989, the inadequacies of the US-China economic relations showed with the rise of mass discontent against flagrant corruption and inflation in China.
Consequent to the mass uprisings in Beijing and many other Chinese cities in 1989, China under the over-all leadership of Deng begged the US to grant more economic concessions to China and promised to further liberalize the entry of US and other foreign investments and open special economic zones. In turn, the US demanded that China join the World Trade Organization and further open up the Chinese economy. China joined the WTO in 2001 and the US and China became undoubtedly the main partners in promoting and carrying out the neoliberal policy. Since then, the economic growth of China accelerated on the capitalist road to become the largest capitalist power after the US.
To make monopoly capitalism dominant in China, the phony Communist Party and the monopoly bureaucrats have plundered the social wealth created by the Chinese working people under the Red flag of socialism and have submitted the working people to extreme conditions of exploitation, mass poverty and deprivation. The dismantling of the commune system drove great numbers of peasants to urban poverty and exploitation by Chinese and foreign companies. The abolition of the right to strike and the lack of labor rights have generalized the 996 rule of wage slavery, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. work for 6 days a week, reminiscent of early 19th century England. Even the highly educated white collar employees are subjected to this rule. Gross inequality and social injustice reign in China.
State monopoly capitalism has served to accelerate strategic economic and military production and to expand private monopoly capitalism to the extent that this has become larger in share values than the state sector. Shares of stocks in state corporations as well as in state-private corporations are publicly traded and acquired by private stock owners. As of 2003, according to a survey report done by the OECD, the private sector share in value-added in the entire Chinese economy was already 59.2 per cent and was growing at an accelerated rate since the 1990s. As of 2020, China claimed that its private sector owned 60 per cent of the economy and accounted for the GDP to the same extent.
As of 2021, according to the Hurun Global Rich List, China had the most billionaires in the world, with 1058 in comparison to 696 in the US. Millionaires and billionaires like Jack Ma of Alibaba are highly honored members of the CPC. In the National People’s Congress as of 2016, more than 100 delegates were billionaires in US dollars (like Pony Ma of Tencent Holdings, Robin Li of Baidu and Kei Jun of Xiaomi) and 209 other delegates had net assets above 2 billion yuan or USD 300 million. In the US Congress at the time, there was no billionaire and the richest was California Republican Rep. Daniel Issa who had as net worth only USD 440 million.
Members of the CPC Central Committee have generally concealed their private assets. But immediate and close relatives have openly become millionaires and billionaires with large shares of stocks in major private corporations, in real estate, technology, energy, manufacturing, commerce, banks and finance. The big bourgeoisie is flagrantly in power in the CPC and the State and in the big private corporations. Corruption has been so rampant in the CPC and the State that President Xi Jinping has so prominently crusaded against it. But Quora researchers point out that the sister of Xi, Qi Qiaoqiao, has accumulated assets of more than USD 1.7 billion.
State monopoly corporations have been intertwined with private monopoly corporations and even sell shares to big private capitalists. Take a look at the list of the 500 largest Chinese private corporations. Let me just mention here the 10 with the largest capital: Huawei (in electronics), Pacific Construction Group, Amer International Group (metals), Hengli Group (chemicals), Country Garden Holdings (real estate), Evergrande Group (real estate), Legend Holdings Ltd (electronics), Gome Holdings Group (retail), China Vanke Co Ltd (real estate) and Geely Holding Group (motors). Huawei’s largest capital is 858 billion yuan or USD 126 billion and Geely’s is 330 billion yuan.
The 10 largest private banks of China are: China Merchants Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, China International Capital Corporation, Bank of Communications, Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, China CITIC Bank and China Minsheng Bank. The following are the 5 largest private insurance companies: China Life Insurance Company, Ping An Insurance Group, China Pacific Insurance Group, People’s Insurance Company of China and New China Life Insurance.
7. You’ve stated that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) is “the greatest epoch-making contribution of Mao.” Do you think that Mao or the Gang of Four made any errors in the implementation of the GPCR? If so, what were they? On a related note, is your view that the Philippines will require a cultural revolution of its own, after political power is seized by its proletarian movement?
JMS: In the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution from 1966 onwards, the CPC itself acclaimed it as the greatest epoch-making contribution of Mao. The GPCR was supposed to be the practical application of Mao’s theory of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through cultural revolution in order to combat modern revisionism, prevent the restoration of capitalism and consolidate socialism. It was supposed to be greatest contribution of Mao to the development of Marxism-Leninism on top of his contributions to Marxist-Leninist philosophy, political economy, social science, rectification movement as requisite for Party building and the strategic line of protracted people’s war by encircling the cities from the countryside.
The importance and necessity of the GPCR from 1966 to 1978 could not be underestimated because the Soviet Union was already afflicted by modern revisionism and had become a social-imperialist power and cast a lot of influence and pressures even within the CPC. The Rightists and revisionists within the CPC Central Committee who opposed the Great Leap Forward and wanted to perpetuate the concessions to the bourgeoisie and the rich peasants were influenced by the Soviet modern revisionists. The correctness of the GPCR in posing modern revisionism as a lethal problem for socialism is well verified by the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s own comprehensive and thoroughgoing restoration of capitalism.
Like the Paris Commune of 1871, the GPCR won great victories before it was defeated. As a result of the GPCR, the youth were mobilized as Red Guards, as revolutionary successors in combination with the toiling masses of workers and peasants. Art and literature were revolutionized to serve the people and honor the revolutionary workers, peasants and soldiers as the heroes. The theatrical models were promoted. The educational system was reformed to stop the phenomenon of university students coming mostly from former exploiting classes and from strata higher than those of the workers and peasants. Barefoot doctors were trained to spread and raise the level of health care in the rural areas.
Revolutionary committees were created as new organs of political power. Three-in-one leading committees were formed in the factories, communes and institutions to combine the representatives of the Party, the masses and the experts. The Anshan Constitution became the model for organizing the workers. The Tachai and Taching models were promoted. Even the economic growth rate during the GPCR averaged more than 10 per cent per year. So, it was successful even in economic terms. The superstructure was revolutionized to put politics in command of production and to enhance production.
The GPCR was defeated but it succeeded in posing the problem of revisionism within socialist society, brought up the principles and methods of fighting it and provided the positive and negative lessons from which succeeding proletarian revolutionaries can learn from. After great victories from 1966 to 1971 in the GPCR, the Left committed errors of ultra-Leftism (which was reflected in the line of condemning both Lin Piao and Chou Enlai) turned off the Middle against the Left and prevented the Left from winning over the Middle to defeat the Right and became vulnerable to intrigues and splitting tactics by the Right which amplified its strength by winning over the Middle.
As in the Soviet Union, when Khruschov rose to power by splitting the Stalinists like Molotov, Voroshilov, Malenkov and others, Deng skilfully got the support of Chou Enlai, Yeh Chingying Chen Yun, Li Xiennian and Hua Kuofeng to bring down one after the other Lin Piao, Chen Boda, members of the Group of Four and posthumously Kang Sheng after the counterrevolutionary coup of 1976. After 1971, the health of Mao was deteriorating but Chou En Lai was most assiduous in consulting him and letting him grace diplomatic occasions. The latter succeeded in putting on record even the informal comments of Mao critical of the Group of Four.
The Rightist-Centrist combine succeeded in undermining and depreciating the class struggle as the key link in favor of diplomatic maneuvers to develop relations with US imperialism against its Soviet superpower rival for the purpose of modernization, access to latest technology, capitalist reforms and integration in the world capitalist system. Indeed, the Chinese monopoly bourgeoisie has been quite successful in the last more than four decades in restoring and developing capitalism. But it has also brought into China the exploitative and oppressive conditions of the capitalist system which can arouse the proletariat and the entire people to fight back and bring back socialism in due time.
On the subject of cultural revolution in relation to he Philippine revolution, I say that there is the appropriate cultural revolution correspondent to every stage of the Philippine revolution. Right now the Filipino proletariat and people are carrying out the new democratic revolution against the semicolonial and semifeudal ruling system. They are now carrying out a national, democratic and scientific cultural revolution in line with the new-democratic economic, social and political demands. When they reach the socialist stage of the revolution, they will carry out the socialist cultural revolution corresponding to every phase of the socialist revolution and aiming for the ultimate goal of communism.
8. In previous interviews you have said that China is concerned about separatist elements in the regions of Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang. In the US and allied countries, where much of our readership resides, the news and discourse about China and the CPC is almost exclusively occupied by allegations of human rights violations in these regions. In our own analysis of the reports about Xinjiang in particular, we have called it an “atrocity propaganda blitz” whose ultimate purpose is to provide grounds for war, much like the US did with Iraq. (To me, they’re reminiscent of stories I heard throughout my childhood about the NPA, as fed by the Philippine government through the bourgeois media.) What is the correct stance for organizations and individuals who are asked to address these allegations? Do you consider it worthwhile to push back against them, even if you regard the CPC as a revisionist party?
JMS: China has national sovereignty over Tibet, Hong Kong and Xinjiang as in Taiwan and Daoyu islands. The human rights and the autonomy rights of the people must be respected. Wherever certain transitory measures have been agreed upon by Chinese central and local authorities must be respected. At the same time, US imperialism and its agents should be prevented from interfering with China’s internal affairs and should stop making provocations. They should be condemned for carrying out propaganda and activities for the purpose of interference and possible aggression.
9. Our last question is regarding the Communist Party of Peru – Shining Path. You’ve previously pointed out that Abimael Guzmán committed errors in terms of both being ultra-left sectarian earlier on, and then swinging to the right after his capture. Today, the newly elected Peruvian socialist Pedro Castillo faces many challenges, including smears of being sympathetic toward or similar to the Shining Path. Can you explicate your view of where the Gonzalo leadership went wrong? Are explanations that fault left-adventurism and the romanticization of violence correct? Even if the CPP-NPA has not committed these errors, why does it seem that they have not escaped similar criticism?
JMS: The background of Pedro Castillo as a peasant, rural teacher and union leader is quite impressive and his electoral success is quite spectacular. According to the Libre Peru, he is not a communist. At any rate, he faces tremendous odds because the US is telling him what to do and uses the US-controlled Peruvian army to threaten him and he does not have control over Congress and it will take a great deal of effort o change the Peruvian constitution. I hope that he can find ways of upholding and realizing national independence, democratic rights, social justice and development in Peru. I also hope that he can free Comrade Gonzalo and other political prisoners who have been languishing in jail for so long.
The people’s war started by Comrade Gonzalo is widely reported as having declined since 1992. I think that the cadres and members of his party are the ones in the best position to sum up, analyze and evaluate their experience. Their criticism and self-criticism and their determination to rectify errors and shortcomings are far more important than what outsiders like me can say. The Communist Party of the Philippines and the New Peoples’ Army have summed up their own experiences periodically and made some major rectification movements to learn from positive and negative lessons, to work and fight more resolutely and vigorously and to achieve greater victories in the revolutionary struggle.
10. We appreciate your response to these questions and we’re looking forward to presenting a fair exposure of your viewpoints to our readership. Maraming salamat po.
Source : https://cpp.ph/statements/on-the-philippines-us-china-and-other-matters/