By Harsh Thakor

Arguably No Marxist thinker or leader today in the World or in the last few decades has had such a profound grasp of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism[1] as Professor Joma Sison. Formally he was the Chairman of the Communist party of Philippines who laid the base for the re-organisation of the party and the launching of the 2 line struggle against the revisionist line from 1968. Sison resurrected the People's War In Philippines and later even in exile guided the Communist Party of Philippines. Some years ago I even had a personal interview of his in Utrecht. In the last 2 decades he was leader of the National Democratic Front of Philippines.

Professor Joma Sison’s work on ‘Philosophy of Marxism Leninism Maoism’ which is part of the Joma Sison reader series is a classic in its own right. Few writings on ideology of Marxism-Leninism -Maoism have ever been as symmetrical, dialectical, incisive or in the total package exhibited more mastery of Leninist ideology. At the very heart Sison touches on how Marxism-Leninism and Maoism have continuity and at no point is there a rupture. Joma reflects the superficiality of Post-Modernism and Post-Modernists and defends the concept of the vanguard party tooth and nail. This book at the very backbone or root summarises why Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a path to liberation and an anti-thesis to all reactionary ideologies. It could be used as a major weapon to confront revisionism and neo-fascism which is entangling our globe at its helm. To cap it all he rekindles the flame of Marxism, in an era when counter revolutionaries project that Socialism has met its doom and imperialism and globalisation has reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Overall, I recommend every cadre to painstakingly read this book, which I maintain is a stepping stone in shimmering the spark of Marxism-Leninism-Mao thought to turn it into a prairie Fire. It gives a reader a firm grasp of the essence of the teachings of Marx Lenin and Mao and the very symmetry of their teachings. A cadre guages how economics and politics is inseparable from each other in Marxism and how historical and dialectic materialism are not just abstract concepts. A reader gets a clear picture of how Trotskyism,[2] revisionism and post-modernism are counterposed to Marxism-Leninism Maoism and why Maoism is an integral part of Leninism or Marxism. Joma illustrates that Marxism-Leninism -Maoism is not all about people’s war or armed struggle but also about mass movements and building of people’s organisations. Notable that Sison makes no distinction between what was known as Mao Tse Tung Thought of Communist Party China in 1966 and Maoism today, claiming it is only change in terminology.

All his book reviewers have praised Sison's great insight into class struggle and Leninist ideology and his deep penetration of the concrete world situation. They firmly feel his writings make the contribution of an architect towards enriching Marxism-Leninism Maoism. Irena Malenko narrates how cadres in Eastern Europe and Russia were oblivious of Maoism in it’s time and what service the book rendered in enlivening developments of Marxism to cadres. In her view it was an invaluable work in instilling consciousness in cadres who were told horrifying lies about the Cultural Revolution. In no uncertain terms she praised Sison’s firm grasp of polemics and his summary of the rectification movement n the Communist Party. Professor Ramon Guillermo praised Sison’s emphasis on Socialist morality and Marxist-Leninist methods of resolving contradictions. He feels Sison makes major contribution in giving proletarian ethics it’s place in Marxist-Leninist ideology or people’ revolution, bridging the gap between Science of political economy and proletarian ethics.

Sison summarizes the critical stages of Marxism developing from its embryo into Leninism, summing up experience of Paris Commune and how earthlier Marxism crystallized into a concrete shape, from Hegelian ideology. Sison covered how Lenin dialectically developed Marxism in every aspect and sphere and how the concept of the Leninist party and imperialism emerged from the very womb of Marxism. He described how in different junctures the Bolshevik party had to vary its tactics, but at no point did they compromise with the Mensheviks. Sison explained the counter revolutionary essence of Trotskyism with light to internal and external situation. Later he made an appraisal of Achievements of Socialist Russia under Stalin,[3] but not without highlighting the gross errors of Stalin. Sison applying Leninist criteria praised the great achievements of Stalin like collectivization, literacy medicine etc. Sison rebuked intellectuals who accused Stalin and Mao of fostering personality cult, narrating instances of how they took major steps to combat or eradicate it. In a most lucid manner he explains how both Lenin and Moa enriched Marx’s philosophy of Dialectical and Historical materialism.

However he was critical of how Stalin undertook the purges, forgetting to apply Marxist-Leninist method or democratic methods. Sison felt Stalin replaced mass mobilizations against class enemies by mere execution. Nevertheless he justified Stalin's stand against Bukharin and Trotsky, who plotted against the Socialist state. Sison makes one understand how Maoism is not just about armed struggle but about developing forms of mass mobilisation and creating subjective forces or people's organisations. Above all he painstakingly dwells upon how Marx, Lenin and Mao penetrated mass line or how mass line was an integral part of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

In most balanced appraisal he evaluated the achievements of the Chinese Communist Party led by Chairman Mao in the New Democratic Revolution, the Socialist Revolution, the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Sison illustrated the essence of the 2 line struggle chairman Mao undertook challenging capitalist roaders like Liu Shao Chi. Most methodically Sison illustrated the symmetry and continuity of all the stages from 1949-76. In China. At its very root Sison explained the necessity of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and why it was the third stage of Marxism-Leninism. He had great praise for the mass movements undertaken in the first revolutionary movement of its kind. The great complexities or twists and turns of this revolution were touched upon, as well as the sincerity of the CCP in depending on the will of the broad masses. Sison firmly upheld the view that from 1966-76 a major 2 line struggle was waged against the revisionists and capitalist roaders and Socialist Society had traversed unparalleled regions. The revolutionary democratic mass political natures of the rallies were highlighted and the revolutionary transformation within the army. Sison explained the aspect of the contradiction of approach towards productive forces. He brilliantly embarked upon how the vanguard role of a Communist party as propounded by Lenin was imperative of the survival and development of a Socialist society or state and without the leadership of a party its very backbone would be broken.

Sison described in detail how Lenin was the architect of the 1st ever proletarian party and his tactics to take Marxism to a new stage, after discovering the era of Imperialism. Vividly the history was covered whereby so many groups or a variety of forces worked together, in the earlier stages.Sison illustrates how Leninism took Marxism to another stage in every sphere, discussing Lenin's writings on dialectical materialism and historical materialism. as well as writings on State and Revolution.

Sison also highlighted the factors that nullified or reverted the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and led to the victory of the capitalist roaders. Sison narrated how establishing relations with America and becoming part of the United Nations China weakened its Socialist base and paved the way for imperialist economic infiltration. He highlighted how the united front was not properly established by the Maoist forces and how splittism was dominant. Sison was critical of Zhou En Lai [4] re -instating capitalist-roader Deng Xiapoing in 1974, who in his view was a centrist. Sison still was not too harsh on criticism of Lin Biao who revolted against Mao and died in an air crash in 1971. Unlike many Maoists Sison did not condemn Lin Biao[5] openly and felt the facts still had to be properly proven.

Sison in many spheres highlights how Chairman Mao developed Leninism whether in philosophy, whether in military line, whether in mass line or even on the economic front. Mao’s formulation of a military line based on Leninist strategy and for the people of the third world was described in detail. Sison credited Mao for developing a new military strategy but firmly defended it as a part of the Leninist doctrine. Chairman Mao's writing s 'On Contradiction' were also discussed in detail as well as on 'dialectics.' Sison explained how in the people’s war Chairman Mao developed revolutionary democracy concept even further.

Sison speaks very positively about the armed struggles and mass movements worldwide be it in Philippines, Turkey, India or Latin America. It is noticeable that he even held Cuba in great esteem, but still outright condemns Chin as an imperialist country today. Most methodically Sison sums up why China today is a capitalist country. Sison at the very root probes into how from 1978 itself every policy initiated was contrary to that of Marx, Lenin or Mao. Sison is critical of the Gonzaloites who propagate that protracted peoples war is universal and applicable even to developed countries and in 'Gonzalo Thought'[6] being classified as a higher stage of Maoism. Sison praised the Peruvian movement but felt that after 1988 it prematurely resorted to urban insurrections after making wrong assessment of movement being in stage of strategic equilibrium. Nevertheless he vehemently praised the armed struggle led by the Communist Party India(Maoist) in India, claiming that it leads the strongest revolutionary army and armed movement in the world. Sison also had positive words for Hugo Chavez if Venezuela. He also devoted a chapter on how the Church was and can become a future ally of the revolution. He narrates how so many priests have become supporters of the struggle in Philippines. In detail Sison discusses the nature of fascism in third world countries and the mode of production. Tooth and nail he defends the thesis of semi-feudalism still being prevalent. Sison hits out at the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, who win his view very prematurely called for a communist International.

A most important subject analyzed is the 2 line struggle within the Communist Party of Philippines from 1987-92 which resembled a major surgical operation. It critically undertook self -criticism adopting the methodology of a scientist, to confront the urban , putchsist insurrectionist line.

Most analytically Sison summarised how China since 1978 has transformed itself into capitalist and imperialist power. To illustrate this he narrates transformation in all spheres, be it in agriculture, education .health, banks or the army. He sums up China’s global expansionist policies and its imperialist trade with third world nations and the emergence of billionare,taking us back to the days when American capital infiltrated China.

No Leninist writer in the world has defended the centenary of the Russian Revolution, fifty years of the Cultural revolution,150th birthday of Lenin and bi-centenary of Karl Marx as astutely or with as outstanding Marxist Leninist dialectical clarity as Sison. I recommend his writings to be read and preserved in a treasure hose for cadres more than the Maoist groups that formulate 'Gonzalo Thought. 'I praise Joma for classifying Maoism as the very ideology the CPC upheld in 1966 and no new idea formulated by the Peruvian Communist Party or Gonzalo. Sison's writings are like lashing a whip on all counter revolutionary trends be it of the Revisionists, Trotskyites or postmodernists. No Marxist writer today so sharply or dialectically refutes post modernists like Alan Badiou and defends the concept of the Leninist vanguard party.

With striking Leninist understanding Sison analyses the crisis of world capitalism and how it is germinating turbulent storms worldwide. On Lenin's 150th anniversary he illustrated how Leninist analysis was as relevant as ever .in taking imperialism at its gravest point. He stressed on how the proletariat of the capitalist counties were allies of people of the 3rd world. Sison dissected all the important aspects of Leninism like The importance of building a strong working class movement ‘, ‘The importance of Revolutionary theory in a Revolutionary movement. ‘The value and strategy of tactics appropriate to current condition s in each country’. Sison highlighted significance of Lenin’s ‘What is to be Done ‘ to clarify role of the vanguard party and discussed how Martov challenged the line of Lenin advocating that trade unions should comprise the proletarian party. He touched upon how Lenin how the working class movement would spontaneously move towards the direction of Socialism. Sison also discussed the importance of Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’ which exposed the class character of a bourgeois state and ‘Imperialism, the highest Stage of Capitalism highlighting decadent and moribund character of monopoly finance capitalism and the struggle for a redivision of the world among the imperialist powers. Sison elaborated how ‘State and Revolution’ was a masterpiece for future generations to master the essence of class struggle to seize revolutionary political power and build Socialism.

Most illustratively when paying tribute to Lenin on 150th anniversary Sison exposed the farce of the pandemic “The pandemic is regrettable but serves us well as a subject for study in connection with Lenin’s teachings on imperialism and the proletarian revolution. It coincides with, exposes further and aggravates the rapidly worsening crisis of the ruling system. It underscores the total bankruptcy of unbridled private greed under neoliberalism against the public good.’

Even before the pandemic occurred, the world capitalist system was already on the verge of a big financial and economic crash. The pandemic has considerably contributed to the worsening of the crisis of the world capitalist system. And it has exposed how the neoliberal economic policy has escalated the exploitation of the working people, how it has deprived them of sufficient public health systems by eroding these with privatization and how it has led to repressive measures and further loss of income and social services during a severe health crisis.

The forces of fascism are also using the pandemic, general lockdowns and business disruptions as pretext to take center stage, push for and impose emergency powers and military takeovers of civilian functions, heighten repressive measures and jostle for diminishing resources, thus creating a more explosive mix that could lead to more violent inter-imperialist rivalries and internal political wrangling among ruling class factions.

But the increasingly intolerable conditions of oppression and exploitation drive the proletariat and the broad masses of the people to wage the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and all reaction. In most countries affected by the pandemic, daily difficulties of the people in coping with the fast-developing health crisis, socio-economic crisis,

Sison also in intrinsic detail describes the specific nature of the People’s War in Philippines. Most illustratively he summarised how the Philippines Communist Party underwent 2 line struggle in 1968 and later 1988 and the creativity or originality with which t applied the Chinese path of Peoples War. He portrayed how the CCP worked in urban and rural areas .The strategy of the New People’s army in terms of launching the required tactical offensives was highlighted and how mobile guerrilla warfare conditions would finally be crystallized or the path paved to undertake it...Sison touched upon the dialectical relationship between the New People’s Army and the Communist Party of Philippines. He dwelled on the stress on building the people’s mass organisations and how the New People’s army comprised of people from the very heart of the masses. Sison wrote about how similar to the Chinese red army the New People’s Army integrated into the agricultural production of the rural poor. He summed up how both the CPP and NPA had deep roots in the workers and peasants. Sison explained the evolution of the strategic stages from one to the other. He explained how today subjective forces permuted the CPP to remain in the zone of a strategic defensive .Sison summed up how over decades the NPA survived like a fish in water confronting every possible hurdle. Most lucidly Sison contrasted the stages of strategic stalemate, strategic offensive and strategic equilibrium in the people’s war and its distinctive aspects from that of China and Vietnam when fighting revolutionary wars. In detail Sison reflected how the CPP initiated self criticism and sharpened practice of mass line.

Quoting Joma Sison ‘In general, as it has already done, the NPA has to wage extensive and intensive guerrilla warfare for a long period of time because of the elongated archipelagic character of the Philippines and the narrow fighting fronts. The Filipinos do not have the advantage of the Chinese such as having a large expanse of land and common borders with the Soviet Union; and the Indochinese such as having common borders with China.’

‘The NPA has already achieved a great victory in self-reliantly building its nationwide strength without any significant military assistance from abroad even under conditions when the revisionist betrayal of socialism in the Soviet Union and then in China resulted in strategic setbacks for the world proletarian revolution. Deng Xiao ping[7] also liquidated the armed struggles in Thailand, Burma and other Southeast Asian countries and withdrew support from that in the Philippines.’

‘Remember that the New People’s Army started with only nine automatic rifles and 26 inferior firearms for 60 fighters. Over a protracted period of time, the NPA has grown to thousands of Red fighters with high-powered weapons, with reserve and auxiliary forces such as the people’s militia with tens of thousands of members and self-defense units of the revolutionary mass organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.’

WEAKNESSES OF WRITINGS OF SISON

To me arguably where Sison could have been more self -critical was on the aspect of the vanguard concept party and concept of dictatorship of the proletariat. He did not highlight the need to create greater need or scope for debate or dissent within a socialist state itself and develop the concept of revolutionary democracy within a party further. I wish he could have discussed the aspect of whether 2 line struggle within a Communist party was sufficient within a Communist party itself, and referred to the classical Marxist model of Socialism.

Perhaps I feel he also did not touch upon why stage of strategic equilibrium or offensive has not been still reached in Philippines and why the Socialist struggles have received such a setback worldwide. No doubt his analysis of non feasibility of people’s war in capitalist countries is praiseworthy and his staunch defense of armed revolutions. With resolute courage he calls for confronting the fascist regime of dictator Duterte,

I would also have liked Sison to touch upon how characteristics of people’s wars in countries differed to that of pre 1949 China, and how that form of strategy should be developed to incorporate other types of struggle in era of globalisation.

Personally I would have liked Joma to dwell into why Socialism was overturned in the erstwhile USSR in 1956 and why the Socialist lost power in China in 1976. To me he has not sufficiently probed into the weakness in establishing sufficient revolutionary democracy to check the administration or excesses of the party and why the army was infiltrated by rightist forces in China. In fact I would have liked Sison to even touch upon weaknesses of the very Boshevik or Leninist party itself, in relation to the Soviets or the CPC with the revolutionary Committees.

Sison does not have a clear cut analysis of Lin Biao or the struggle waged by the CPC to combat his ideas.He does not give sufficient space to the contribution of Comrade Chang Chun Chiao or even Chiang Ching, who were members of the group of 4 in the Cultural Revolution who spearheaded the final struggle against the capitalist roaders.

I also wish Sison could have reviewed more comprehensively why the Communist Party of Philippines could not launch a strategic offensive and was compelled to make tactical negotiations with President Duterte.

Sison also to me did not delve into the spiritual aspect of Marxism like Che Guevera or into psychology like Frantz Fanon. In my view Sison’s classing Cuba as a Socialist country is ecclectical.

Surprisingly in stages Sison saw no defect in forging alliance with Social Imperialist Russia of Brezhnev era or East European pseudo socialist states before the 1990's.