On the eve of the International Workers' Day:

Workers' Breakfast with the UP Diliman Chancellor

Fight for National P16K Monthly!
Oppose labor contractualization!

Video Clips   Bonus Tracks


Quezon Hall, UP Diliman


April 30,  2015








Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy

UP Diliman joins call for P16k national minimum wage

On the eve of the International Labor Day (ILD), the University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD) community delivered its united support for the nationwide call to set a national minimum wage for workers in the public and private sector at P16,000 a month. They also denounced the policy on contractualization of labor that depresses wage and violates workers’ rights to job security, benefits and organization. The announcement coincides with the campus commemoration of the ILD through a Solidarity Breakfast held on 30 April 2015 at the UPD Quezon Hall. It was participated in by all working sectors in the university under the banner of All Workers Unity UP Diliman and some UPD officials.

Faculty members, researchers and employees of UP Diliman, as well as drivers, vendors, residents and other working sectors in the campus shared with UPD Chancellor Michael L. Tan the usual working people’s breakfast of half cup rice, half fried egg, half dried fish (tuyo) and a cup of weak coffee. The meal illustrates the poverty and hunger experienced by families of Filipino workers due to meager wages. University officials and sectoral leaders also affixed their signatures on a Solidarity Wall to symbolize their support for the nationwide campaign for workers' concerns.






IBON Foundation ∙ 114 Timog Avenue, Quezon City Philippines 1103 ∙ Phone: (632) 927-6986/927-7060 to 61 ∙ Fax: 929-2496 ∙ media@ibon.org ∙ http://www.ibon.org        

Reference: Mr Sonny Africa (IBON executive director)


7 of 10 unemployed had high school degree or college-educated

Research group IBON expressed concern that the number of unemployed remains most concentrated among the youth. Official unemployment figures also show that many jobless workers are high-school or college-educated.

According to IBON, this underscores not only the gravity of the worst-ever jobs crisis under the Aquino government but also the economy’s inability to sustain job creation in the country, including for the youth joining the labor force.

Almost half or 47.3% of all unemployed were in the 15-24 year old age-group as of January 2015. Meanwhile, almost a third (31.6%) of all unemployed were in the 25-34 age group during the same period.

IBON added that while education has been valued by society as a ticket out of poverty, it should be noted that among the unemployed, almost three out of 10 (33.4%) had a college education, with at least 20.4% actually having graduated.  Moreover, 7 of 10 unemployed youth were high-school or college-educated. In 2014, some 553,706 graduated from college yet only 518,000 jobs were created the year before.

The research group reiterated that government's refusal to implement policies that will develop the country's domestic economic sectors and boost the potential of the labor force, such as agriculture and domestic industries, is the reason behind worsening joblessness. (end)

IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues. 


Visit www.ibon.org | Follow IBON on Twitter | Follow IBON on Facebook













April 29, 2015 at 9:03pm



Dear students,


            I chose this day to write to you, my dear students, because it is an historic moment for us as a people to reflect on what we can do and had done for our poor and disinherited fellow Filipino,Mary Jane Veloso. The efforts of multitude of people around the world, the unprecedented international solidarity displayed on global scale, had put a new lease on Mary Jane’s life. Moot or not, the people can claim their victory! The outpouring of protests is already a resounding victory for the people.


            My dear students, you always engage me in class discussions on the futility of embracing activism and joining collective movements that seek social transformation.  You have always been skeptical whenever I told you that in our collective struggle that lies our ultimate strength. Yet, paradoxically, you also engage in various socio-civic projects and programs, individually or as a member of an organization, even in the social media. Many of you prefer to be spectators, fence-sitters, and by-standers. I have always wondered as a sociologist, what prods you to easily give up on collective struggle inside and outside our campus. But I cannot completely blame you for feeling and believing that way. Our educational system and your families have taught you to value your career more than the welfare of our nation. You have been taught to be docile students pursuing honor and excellence rather than using honor and excellence to liberate people from the bondage of poverty and emancipate their minds. Your religion has socialized you to live for others but it has emphasized the cultivation of your inner spiritual life. The dominant media have exposed you to welter of information. You have sophisticated gadgets and applications that make you more intelligent than the young people of my generation, yet these technologies could not offer you an overarching framework to make sense of these sea of information.In the end, you are left making your own subjective judgment, privately concocting your own conclusion and believing they are the only true opinion.And when we subject them to critical interrogation during class discussion, you retreat into your inner sanctum of private opinion by posting this statement on your cerebral door: “This is my opinion! Respect it.” End of the debate! You take criticisms of social issues as an attack against your opinion.


            My dear students, this is the reason why I want you to join social movements, join activist student groups. In these movements, you will have the opportunity to let your subjective opinion, which you think is a product of your omniscience, to be confronted by other points of view, which are products of long historical struggle and tested by defeats and triumphs in the long, unending tunnel of history. Do not think that activists out on the streets are simple unthinking, and puppet-driven boisterous people,who lost their own creative imagination. You are definitely wrong. These people have convictions. Their convictions follow from long process of debates and from historical analysis that has been honed through organizing and collective struggle. And they are willing to engage you in a debate. Activists are not one-dimensional people who see reality in a one-sided way. In fact, because they see things differently, they want change. They also listen and explain. They also have statistics and figures just like you. They have read a lot. And I invite you toread what they had read –Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Kollontai, Che Guevara,Philippine Society and Revolution, and others. But they have their own overarching framework which differs from yours. Thus, when you talk to the activists, inside or outside the social media, exercise charity of interpretation. That is, do not assume you already know what they are fighting for or the reasons how they arrived at their conclusions. They are not simply out of the streets because they are hopelessly irresponsible. These people,just like you, also prefer to busk in the comfort of their home or probably pursue leisure somewhere else. But because they are activists, they don’t have this luxury like you do. Far from that, they take their social responsibility seriously; therefore, they take time, endless hours attending meetings and planning on how to effectively address the issues that affect the common good. They engage others and their fellow activists in lively academic discussions. But they believe that practice and testing one’s beliefs in real life is the true test of the correctness of one’s knowledge. And mind you, they also are normal and happy people, witty and humorous. Activism does not rob you of the ability to laugh simply because it demands thinking intelligently! They also take pleasure in simple things like singing.


            My dear students, follow the advice of a long time American activist and critic of American imperialism, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Let’s start our day by reading the newspapers. But we have to look for critical interpretations of these empirical data. We have to read the alternative media to dispel the mystical illusion being created by propaganda machine of the status quo. And this is supposed to be the value and vision of liberal education embedded in universities and colleges. Liberal education, which is embedded in General Education, is supposed to transform the mind, free the mind from the mist of public opinion. Reading and knowing the opinion of the public is a duty of every citizen. But to subject them to critical and ruthless criticism is the task of colleges and universities. Universities and colleges therefore are potential breeding grounds for activists. Peopleshould be afraid of universities and colleges. For they produce irreverent but educated individuals who have the courage to laugh at the Emperor who has no clothes! If universities and college do not produce this kind of students, then, it is no different from other institutions. It has lost its mandate to educate. Education is reduced to entertainment.


            Finally, my dear students, knowing what is right, knowing what is to be done does not automatically force you to commit and engage in activism and social movements. There are a lot of young people, and even older ones, who know very well the problem with our nation and the world, yet they choose to remain as onlookers, in some cases, laughing pessimist hecklers. They either surrendered to pessimism (which is ironic considering that they still pray that the kingdom of God comes) of the will, or have decided that there are more important values to pursue in life other than serving the people and the nation. What is missing? What is lacking? What has to give so that these young people be forced to choose to choose (Kierkegaard)and devout their lives serving the people? Between knowing and acting there is a great lacuna that must be overcome. I believe this gap can only be sutured by love. Hence Che Guevara said “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.” Activists, like revolutionaries are guided by love. Speaking before young people of Cuba, Che Guevara encouraged them: "One must have a large dose of humanity, a large dose of a sense of justice and truth in order to avoid dogmatic extremes, cold scholasticism, or an isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity is transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force." Large dose of humanity simply means large dose of love. Love cannot be taught. You have to encounter love in the situation of the toiling and suffering masses! Immersion in the situation of the masses is a conditio sine qua non among activists. This trait distinguishes them from pure academics who write edicts from the unreachable heights of Mt. Olympus.


            Finally, when you finally decide to love, you have chosen to struggle. You have chosen a difficult but exciting path. You have decided to live ethically and abide by the standards worthy of activists. You will be required to do more things other than clicking on petitions on a social media. Activism is not clickitivism. It will definitely change the way you look at the world and your life. You will experience what Nietzsche calls as transvaluation. You will overturn the table of your own personal values, redefine the values that organize your current comfortable life. People will necessarily notice the changes. If might be bad news or good news to them.Bu who cares? You have chosen, you have loved. And when we love, we are changed by our life-changing encounter. Commitment is fidelity to this encounter. Some people may not understand you. So be it. People madly in love are often called idiots and irresponsible because they believe in the impossible. But being idiot and irresponsible are relative labels.


            In the end, what is exciting and challenging about activism, if you decide to embrace it, is not the promise of final victory. In the case of Mary Jane, many young people actively engaged in saving her from the scaffolds in spite of the almost nil chance of saving Mary Jane. But my dear students do not pin down your motivation for joining youth activism because of the prospect for winning. There will be disappointments. There will be lots of heart aches, sacrifices, and frustration that you will encounter.But activism does not promise a linear path to victory. Battles will be fought.You will lose some and win others. The road is narrow, rocky, and stormy in many instances. We may be forced stop in many occasions during the journey. But nothing can stop us. For if we stop, we will suffer the same fate as when we refuse to fight. It is better to have loved and lost, than to have loved but refused to struggle simply because of the fear of losing. Among activists, that is the greatest defeat. And that is the fear that is very difficult to overcome. But fighting side-by-side with others, who share the same vision, who have found their salvation in other’s salvation, you will enjoy the journey. It makes life meaningful. And if life is meaningful, then, we can endure the hardship ahead!  As the old cliché among revolutionaries puts it, "Dare to struggle, dare to win!" Or, I say, dare to take risk, dare to love! But as in love, when you commit, it is war!


Your friend and comrade in the struggle,




Written on 29 April 2015, the day a miracle happened, Mary Jane Veloso's execution is suspended indefinitely   



by Joma Sison on Saturday, March 12, 2011 at 12:31am

Remarks to the Marxian Study Group, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Little AULA, 9 March 2011, 1630 HRS

By Prof. Jose Maria Sison

Thank you for inviting me to speak on the Marxian critique of the neoliberal economic agenda.

1. Let me begin by reviewing briefly with you basic concepts in the Marxist critique of the capitalist political economy.

a. There is the contradiction between the social character of production in large scale machine production by collective labor in factories on the one hand and the private appropriation of the product of labor due to private ownership of the means of production on the other hand. A small part of the new material values created by the workers goes to them as wages for their subsistence. The surplus value is divided among the capitalists as profit, the banks as interest on loans and the landlord as rent.

b. To maximize profits, the capitalists keep on enlarging the constant capital for equipment and raw materials and keeping down the variable capital for wages. Every commodity contains the old material values (previously congealed labor) from the use of the raw materials and depreciation of equipment and new material values that only living labor power (expressible in average socially necessary labor time) can create.

c. The drive of the capitalists to maximize profits by enlarging constant capital and pushing down wages is that it results in the crisis of relative overproduction. It becomes more difficult for workers to buy what they produce as the capitalist profit rises and their real purchasing power declines. The rising ratio of constant capital to variable capital also results in the tendency of the profit rate to fall.

d. Expanding the money supply and credit can be used to stimulate production, trade and consumption of the goods. But it has also been increasingly used by the capitalists to accelerate capital accumulation, overvalue assets and rake in higher profits not only from production but more so from the financial markets in an effort to counter the crisis of overproduction and the tendency of the profit rate to fall. Ultimately the boom goes bust, with economic and financial crisis breaking out.

e. In the development of the free market economy of the 19th century to the monopoly capitalism or modern imperialism of the 20th and thereafter, the role of finance capital has become dominant and decisive upon the merger of industrial capital and bank capital and the higher importance of the export of surplus capital over the export of ccmmodities.

2. The state always plays a necessary role in the running of the modern economy, be it industrial capitalist, socialist or semi-feudal. It accounts for a large chunk of the economy and its policies can shape the economy one way or the other.

a. In opposition to the capitalist system, the Marxists or the scientific socialists advocate the overthrow of the bourgeois state, the socialization of the private ownership of the means of production and the adoption of state economic planning to ensure the balanced functioning and development of the economy and prevent the economic and financial crises that have afflicted capitalist society. Socialist societies have in fact arisen and developed until undermined and destroyed by modern revisionism and restoration of capitalism.

b. In a capitalist economy, at any level of development, the state accounts for a large part of the economy as the biggest single employer and as the collector and spender of tax revenues. It can shape the economy through monetary and fiscal policies. It can play a pivotal role in further developing an economy. It can use the power of taxation to reallocate resources and provide social services. It can cause economic and financial crisis through misallocation of resources. And when economic and financial crisis strikes, state intervention is called for to counter or solve the crisis.

c. During the Great Depression, state intervention was deemed necessary as an instrument for countering crisis and reviving demand, production and employment. The Roosevelt administration proclaimed the New Deal and created the Works Progress Administration in order to reemploy large numbers of the unemployed in public works projects intended to pumpprime the economy. Subsequently, the use of fiscal policy and public works projects would become known as Keynesianism under Keynes' theory of general equilibrium.

d. The use of Keynesianism in civil construction projects did not solve the crisis but it did salve the social and economic situation where fascism did not take over the capitalist state and society. In Hitlerite Germany, the use of public works to stimulate the economy glided into feverish military production. The worst consequences of the Great Depression were fascism and World War II. In the United States, expanded and intensified civil and military production for the war effort overcame the crisis and stagnation brought about by the Great Depression.

3. Let us now look at neoliberalism arising and holding sway in the capitalist world as a reaction to Keynesianism and State Intervention

a. Up to the 1970s, Keynesianism was touted as the economic policy of state intervention that countered the Great Depression, strengthened the US as bulwark of capitalism, guided the reconstruction of the war-devastated capitalist economies under the Marshall Plan and maintained equilibrium in capitalist economies. But the reconstruction and revival of the countries defeated in World War II would bring up once more the crisis of overproduction and the oft recurrent bouts with recession, despite the frantic efforts of the now united imperialist countries to arrange and rearrange the market in the world and global regions.

b. The phenomenon of stagflation became starkly clear. When the economic policy makers deployed monetary and fiscal measures to stimulate the stagnant economy inflation would surge and when they applied the measures to dampen inflation stagnation would further deepen. Dogmatic exponents of the “free market” based in the University of Chicago School of Economics took the lead in attacking Keynesianism and state intervention in the economy. They blamed wage inflation and social spending as the product of state interventionism and the cause of stagflation. They conveniently obscured the demand pull inflation caused by the rising levels of military production and expenditures, massive overseas deployment of US military forces, wars of aggression in Korea and Indochina and space research and development.

c. The exponents of neoliberal economic policy stressed that the market must be given free rein and that the state must limit itself to the monetarist policy of adjusting the money supply and interest rates in order to cope with fluctuations in the market. They demanded the pushing down of wages and the cutback on social spending by government and making more capital available to the capitalists for investment by reducing taxes on them and giving all opportunities to raise capital and profits through trade and investment liberalization, privatization of state assets, deregulation and the denationalization of the economies of client-states. The neoliberal policy was also used as an offensive weapon against the vestiges of socialism and public ownership of the means of production in the countries already ruled by revisionist cliques.

d. The neoliberal economic policy started to become dominant in the world capitalist system in the years of 1979 to 1981, with Thatcher and Reagan touting it and using it against the working class. They claimed that the more savings or capital in the hands of the monopoly capitalists translates automatically into productive investment in the so-called free market. In the next three decades, it was made to appear that there was no economic problem that could not be solved by helicoptering and pouring unlimited money and credit on it firstly on the so-called supply side of the monopoly bourgeoisie and secondly on the demand side of the consumers.

4. Let us look at how the neoliberal economic policy went bankrupt, inflicting great suffering on the people and devastating entire economies in both developed and underdeveloped countries.

a. The US started raising the interest rates in 1979, practically calling in the loans from the third world and causing the so-called Latin American debt crisis in 1982. Reagan went into high speed spending for the production of high tech weaponry in 1980s. This could not generate any significant amount of employment. The US slowed down on the manufacture of consumer goods and started to import these at an escalating rate in the hope that the suppliers of these (Europe and East Asia) would become buyers of big items from the US. In less than a decade, the US would incur huge trade deficits and become the No. 1 debtor of the world.

b. Clinton tried to revive US manufacturing in the 1990s by allowing the commercial production of electronic technology that used to be restricted to the military for national security reasons. But the US corporations, especially in the military industrial complex, opted to produce and export the more profitable big items. China became the big supplier of consumer goods to the US and the US proceeded to incur trade deficits far bigger than ever before. US manufacturing further declined. The US went further into the the financialization of its economy and at a maddening speed after the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and the liberalization of finance, removing the difference between the banks and investment companies and allowing both the privilege of unrestricted generation of the money supply, credit and derivatives.

c. Job security was attacked. Part time jobs in service sector replaced secure jobs in the manufacturing sector. The real income of workers declined. Social insurance and social services were subjected to privatization and higher fees. The trade union rights and social benefits were eroded in the imperialist countries and much more so elsewhere. But still through offers of debt financing, portions of the working class were pushed to engage in consumerist credit card spending, buy shares of stocks in the years of the high tech bubble from 1995 to 2000 and acquire houses on mortgage that they could not really afford during the housing bubble of 2002 to 2007.

d. Above them, the finance oligarchy and the monopoly bourgeoisie made profits rapidly, continued to overvalue their assets and went berserk with the most fantastic and incomprehensible kinds of derivatives, like mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps, until the moment of truth came in September 2008, when the crisis of overproduction became so severe and the financial markets collapsed. The worthlessness of the derivatives became exposed when the increasing unemployed could not pay for their mortgages.

e. In the less developed economies of the world, particularly the so-called emerging markets, the neoliberal economic policy was already exposed as unsustainable during the so-called Asian financial crisis in 1997. But even then debt financing continued to be used to support booms of private construction and importation of consumer goods in countries that produced for export raw materials and a few semi-manufactures. In the ongoing crisis, such countries are suffering from the falling prices of their exports, the rising prices of imports, widening trade deficits and a mounting debt burden. These spell economic and social devastation.

5. The global economic and financial crisis has protracted and worsened since 2008. There seems to be no end in sight. Before the current crisis can be solved or modulated, another bigger crisis is anticipated in 2016.

a. That is because the political and business leaders in the imperialist countries stick to the dogma of neoliberalism and dictate upon their client states. Summit after summit has been held by the rulers of the major capitalist countries but to no avail. Conference after conference has been held by the IMF, World Bank and WTO but to no avail. The monopoly bourgeoisie, especially the financial oligarchy, does not want to give up the rapid accumulation of capital and easy profits under the neoliberal economic policy.

b. The big banks and firms that created the economic and financial crisis have been bailed out by public money to cover their losses and make book profits. Thus, there are sporadic claims to recovery, especially in the stock market. But public money that is supposed to be earmarked for generating production and employment in infrastructure, social services and green energy is subject to labor-cost saving and profit-making by the private corporations under the continuing neoliberal policy. Thus, there is no real economic recovery, no expansion of production and employment.

c. Public deficits and public debt have mounted to aggravate and deepen the economic and financial crisis as a result of the bailouts, tax benefits and other forms of bonanza for the banks, corporations and the upper class. Now, the rulers of the capitalist states are adopting austerity measures and raising taxes and fees in order to shift more burden of the crisis to the people. Public sector employees are being thrown out of jobs or their salaries and pensions are being reduced. Social services are being reduced and made more expensive than ever before. The toiling masses of workers and peasants and the middle class are being deprived of their jobs, homes, livelihood and basic social services. They are being subjected to worse forms of exploitation and oppression.

d. There is therefore widespread discontent in the world, in both the developed and underdeveloped countries. In certain parts of the world, the broad masses of the people have begun to rise up against the US-directed neoliberal economic policy and its extremely exploitative and oppressive features and consequences. It is our duty to further arouse, organize and mobilize the people to repudiate this policy and to demand their national and social liberation from those who exploit and oppress them under the slogan and dogma of the so-called free market.###





PAHAYAG NG PAKIKIISA SA KILUSANG PAGGAWA SA TIMOG KATAGALUGAN Ika-112 Pandaidigna Araw ng Paggawa, Mayo Uno 2015 Ni Prop. Jose Maria Sison...


UP workers and professor 

April 30, 2015 11:58 AM


A UP regular employee 

April 30, 2015 11:57 AM



A UP casual worker 

April 30, 2015 11:54 AM


UP Diliman Church of the Risen Lord pastor 

April 30, 2015 11:50 AM


UPD Vice Chancellor Nestor Castro 

April 30, 2015 11:48 AM




UPD Chancellor Michael Tan 

April 30, 2015 11:42 AM



Labor and the Philippine Revolution

Speech of Jose Maria Sison

Delivered in Pilipino before the 64th Anniversary Conference of the Union de Impresores de Filipinas on February 6, 1966; published in English in Progressive Review No. 9.}

A review of Philippine history will show that the Filipino proletariat emerged before a determined national liberation movement could be formed. The Katipunan was initially based among the city workers and it was steered by a leadership epitomized by Andres Bonifacio.

The revolutionary movement included the shipyard workers and warehousemen whose considerable number signified the great impact of the opening of the Suez Canal and the opening of the ports of Manila to foreign trade since 1815. Commerce and liberal ideas came to the country more easily and stirred a trend towards bourgeois democracy and jarred the old colonial and feudal order. Andres Bonifacio who embodied this new development in Philippine society was both a bodeguero and a student of the French revolution.

The revolutionary movement also included the clandestine printers’ union inside the UST press which secretly printed some materials for the Katipunan and brought out some types for the printing machine of Kalayaan. The immediate involvement of the printers in the revolutionary movement was again indicative of the progressive character of the struggle.
The first elements of the Filipino proletariat—the shipyard workers, warehousemen and printers—were immediately in the forefront at the very outset of the national liberation movement, only to be pushed aside by the more articulate advocates of liberalism, the ilustrados. The Tejeros Convention clarified the class leadership of the old type of national-democratic revolution.

One might say, however, that earlier, through more than three centuries, forced labor in encomiendas, in timber-cutting, in shipbuilding, in church and government house constructions, in mining and in building roads and bridges spurred the continuous occurrence of localized revolts which were the objective preparation for the Philippine Revolution.

One can be more pointed and definite about the role of the Filipino worker in the preparation of the Philippine Revolution by citing the fact that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872, besides being the occasion for the Gomburza martyrdom, was in the first place a strike of the shipyard workers who demanded better living and working conditions and who were violently suppressed by the colonial authorities.

Significantly these workers had organized themselves into a mutual aid and benefit association as early as 1861. But, even as we recognize the decisive role of the Filipino proletariat in the preparation and initiation of the Philippine Revolution and in making the clear call for national liberation, let us also recognize the fact that the Filipino proletariat was still in its germinal stage in 1896 and that at that time it was more influenced by the liberal ideas of Europe and of the ilustrados than imbued with the proletarian ideology of Marx which was already quite a specter frightening the ruling bourgeoisie of Europe. In other words, the workers were more patriotic in a spontaneous way than class conscious. The Katipunan, though steered by men from the proletariat, was basically a patriotic movement embracing the masses in the most general sense. Andres Bonifacio could only realize that the Filipino ilustrados were reformistic and the masses were revolutionary and that the Filipino rich tended to associate themselves with the colonial authorities against whom the masses were already in revolt.

The importance of an ideology which is truly that of the proletariat and which guides all the toiling people according to their own national-democratic interests is starkly demonstrated by the ease with which the ilustrados and landlords derailed the Katipunan from its original course and weakened the entire revolutionary movement as soon as they combined to form the leadership of the Aguinaldo government and command the peasant masses. The liberal frame of mind which prevailed in the higher councils of the movement led eventually to a series of compromises like the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, and the naive agreement with the clever representatives of U.S. imperialism in Hong Kong and Singapore, the proclamation of a republic under the “noble protection” of the United States and capitulation to the U.S. “pacification” campaign in which the masses fighting for national freedom suffered and died in their hundreds of thousands.

Guided by their self-seeking liberalism and their genteel tradition, the representatives of the ilustrados—such as the Buencaminos, Legardas, Paternos, Pardo de Taveras and others—sat back in their comfortable chairs as the plundering hordes of MacArthur stamped their bloody feet on the face of our nation. The most traitorous section of the ilustrados had clapped their hands when the price of $2O million was settled in the U.S.-Spanish Treaty of Paris in payment for the Philippines. With their creole mentality, the renegades embraced the imperialists as fast as they had first refused to heed the Cry of Pugad Lawin.

U.S. imperialism marched in to cheat our people of their freedom and to massacre them for refusing to submit. But the proper blood money was available, the proper spoils were in government offices and in commerce, and the proper liberal language was employed to veil the brutal reality of imperialist conquest. U.S. imperialism made use of deceitful slogans like “democracy,” “Christianity,” “benevolent assimilation” and “tutelage for self-rule” as they dealt brutally with non-compromisers who refused to take the oath of allegiance to the U.S. flag and who continued to fight for Philippine independence.

Though we are highly critical of the inadequacy of the liberal frame of mind and method of struggle which in the long run weakened the Philippine Revolution, we recognize the revolutionary government of Aguinaldo at the height of its strength as objectively a bourgeois-democratic formation. The spontaneous masses, including the proletariat, found their rights formally respected in the Malolos Constitution and in practice. The government needed their strength to fight Spanish colonialism and U.S. imperialism.

At the height of the Filipino-American War, the printers working in the press of the revolutionary government and led by Hermenegildo Cruz, Felipe Mendoza and Arturo Soriano struck to protest the supercilious behavior of the foreman and to demand better working conditions. The revolutionary leaders could have invoked the critical war situation as an excuse for quelling the just demands of the workers but, because of the national and democratic character of the revolution, the strikers found ready and warm sympathy among them, particularly from General Antonio Luna, editor of La Independencia, who declared: “We are actually for the honor, independence and prosperity of the Filipino people. I see no reason why we should not give the demand of the strikers if we really are for the improvement of the Filipino workers. The first concern of the Filipino government is to give protection and prosperity to the Filipinos.”

We relate this incident not only to belabor the fact that workers continued to be an organic part of the revolution but also to show that they were beginning to be conscious of their class interests even as they had entered into a bourgeois-democratic alliance. From that time on, even through the harshest years of the U.S. imperialist regime, the Filipino working class continuously developed in ideology, in politics and in organization.

Union Obrera Democratica

The return of Isabelo de los Reyes in 1901 from the prisons and barricades of Barcelona invigorated to some extent the Filipino workers as a distinct class. Isabelo de los Reyes smuggled in a broad range of socialist reading materials to be read by workers and immediately made contact with Hermenegildo Cruz and other leading organizers from the ranks of the working class.

The workers recognized De los Reyes as a fearless Filipino patriot who defied the Spanish colonial authorities and suffered incarceration several times. They also saw in him a man who understood the international brotherhood and experience of the proletariat and who was prepared to provide leadership to the Filipino proletariat. In a way, at that time, De los Reyes comprehended the popular advance in the storming of the Bastille and the proletarian advance in the Paris Commune.

On December 30, 1901, when for the first time Rizal’s martyrdom was commemorated, the leaders of various printers’ unions and gremios met and decided to integrate themselves under the name of Union de Impresores de Filipinas (UIF). Participants in the meeting were Isabelo de los Reyes, Hermenegildo Cruz, Arturo Soriano, Melanio de Jesus, Luis Santos, Juan Geronimo, Timoteo Anzures, Nazario Pasicolan, Leopoldo Soriano and Margarita Pasamola—all leading pioneers in the Philippine trade union movement. In this meeting, the Marxist slogan of the First International, “the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the workers themselves,” was adopted by the men who formed the Union de Impresores de Filipinas, the undisputed premier trade union which served as the base for the first labor federation, the Union Obrera Democratica (UOD).

The Union Obrera Democratica was established on January 2, 1902, in the first labor congress ever to be held in Philippine history. The Congress also approved the UOD Constitution which embodied the principles adopted from the books Vida e Obras de Carlos Marx by Friedrich Engels and Los Dos Campesinos by the Italian radical socialist, Malatesta. Isabelo de los Reyes was elected president and Hermenegildo Cruz, vice president.

All the speakers in the Congress attacked U.S. imperialism and the Catholic Church while secret agents listened and took notes. While advancing the economic demands of the labor movement, the UOD expressed its purpose to encourage the people’s movement for independence. Alleging that the trade unionists were “subversives” and “anarchists,” Governor General Taft himself directly ordered their blacklisting and surveillance. Thus, U.S. imperialism proved alert to the patriotism and class-consciousness of Filipino workers and prepared its instruments of coercion and suppression.

On August 2, 1902, when the UOD waged the first general strike of the Filipino labor movement to protest the rejection of their demand for a general wage increase as an adjustment to the inflationary crisis, the U.S. colonial government moved to charge Isabelo de los Reyes with sedition and rebellion and convicted him upon the false witness of a striker who turned out to be a secret service man. The charges and conviction were based on a Spanish conspiracy law. Soon after, Isabelo de los Reyes who had withstood various vicissitudes in the Spanish era succumbed to the antilabor tactics of imperialism and resigned from the UOD to concentrate on his religious activity in the Philippine Independent Church.

UIF president and UOD vice president Hermenegildo Cruz acted to have Dr. Dominador Gomez replace De los Reyes in the leadership of the labor movement. The UOD was renamed Union Obrera Democratica de Filipinas (UODF). In his proclamation speech as UODF president, Gomez said:

“Do not be like some of our countrymen who are wise and able but have no courage to fight our masters and oppressors. They are timid and would like always to retreat. The banner of Union Democratica de Filipinas is dynamic nationalism against any form of imperialism, against oppression.”

In spite of U.S. imperialist repression, the labor federation under Gomez grew by leaps and bounds from 33 to 150 unions. Fearing the growth of organized labor, the U.S. imperialists instructed the ever-useful colonial errand boys, Pedro Paterno and Dr. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, to persuade Gomez to resign as UODF president and accept a high government post. Gomez was only enraged to hear the two promoters of compromise and told them that he had already committed himself to the labor movement and to militant nationalism.

On May 1, 1903, despite the refusal of the U.S. colonial government to give UODF a permit to demonstrate, the federation staged a demonstration of 100,000 workers to celebrate labor day for the first time in the Philippines. The demonstration was held in front of Malacanang and the workers shouted: “Down with U.S. imperialism!”

As recorded by Hermenegildo Cruz, Dr. Gomez spoke before the demonstrators: 

“We were told that America is the mother of democracy, but the American government in Malacanang is afraid to talk with the people who want democracy. The Americans said that they are for freedom, but why is it that they want to curtail our freedom by displaying fixed bayonets? The workers will not accept from the capitalists even a single centavo without an exchange of its equivalent in honest labor. What we are against is the practice of the capitalists of robbing the workers of the product of their sweat by not giving them what is due them. The workers should always bear in mind that they must achieve their emancipation themselves. We will not win without a struggle. We need strength in our struggle. We must always be united. In our struggle for better working and living conditions, we must at the same time struggle for the liberation of the motherland.”

Within the same month of May, 1903, the home of Dr. Gomez and the printing press where the UODF organ was printed were simultaneously raided by American and Filipino policemen in violation of the right to home and the right of free press and free assembly. The UODF president, like his immediate predecessor Isabelo de los Reyes, was charged with “sedition” and “illegal association.”

What U.S. imperialism resented in the leadership of these two men was the conjunction of the labor movement and a militant anti-imperialist movement which, it was afraid, would pursue the Philippine Revolution. The UODF was accused of giving assistance to the persistent armed struggle of Macario Sakay against the U.S. imperialists. Afterwards, the U.S. colonial regime stirred the rumor that Dr. Gomez had betrayed Macario Sakay. Immediately after the crackdown on the UODF which was intended to silence anti-imperialist workers, the agents of the American Federation of Labor tried to take over the Philippine trade union movement and to propagate the bourgeois-liberal concept that labor be separated from political activity and that it be always in unity with capital. To pursue its imperialist and anti-labor aims, the American Federation of Labor encouraged Lope K. Santos to organize the Union del Trabajo de Filipinas (UTF) and to stress the separation of labor and politics and the unity of the working class and the capitalist class. The UTF, in contrast with the UODF, enjoyed the full backing of Governor General Taft.

However, despite U.S. imperialist sponsorship, the UTF failed to deceive the workers. The stalwarts of the premier labor organization, the Union de Impresores de Filipinas, like Hermenegildo Cruz, Felipe Mendoza and Arturo Soriano, exposed the attempt to mislead the Filipino workers. Their experience in the struggle for national liberation and for workers’ rights and their exposure to Marxist ideas, chief of which is that the proletariat must win political power, had taught them how to withstand brutal repression and deception even if done in the style of U.S. imperialism.

With the disappearance of De los Reyes and Gomez from the trade union movement by force of imperialist power, Hermenegildo Cruz found himself at the helm, and he concentrated on transforming the craft unions (gremios) into full-fledged industrial unions so that these would be the stronger basis for a new labor federation. On May 1, 1913, he organized the Congreso Obrero de Filipinas and was elected its president.

Congreso Obrero de Filipinas

The Congreso de Obrero de Filipinas (COF) continued to expose and condemn the American Federation of labor, its racial policies and its attempts to subvert the Philippine trade union movement and subordinate it to the U.S. colonial government. The COF vigorously advocated the independence of the Philippines from U.S. imperialism.

In the era of imperialism, the COF was not free from splitters. In order to pursue their pro-imperialist tendencies and their U.S. style of political muckraking, Vicente Sotto, Ramon Diokno and Lope K. Santos formed a faction and split away to form the Asemblea Obrera in 1917. In order to pursue his program of company unionism, Joaquin Balmori also split away in the same year and formed the Federacion del Trabajo de Filipinas. Balmori advocated that labor unions should charge no membership dues and should receive financial support from management. His federation even made a resolution against strikes and so-called subversive ideas.

In the meantime, in the strongest single labor organization of the period, the UIF, a reorganization was made on March 1, 1918, in which Crisanto Evangelista was elected president. The period was marked by an atmosphere of militancy in the trade union movement as the October Revolution ushered in the first proletarian state.

In the entire trade union movement, the emergence of the young Crisanto Evangelista as a leader marked a new era. Upon his assumption as UIF president, he created a committee, composed of Hermenegildo Cruz, Pablo Lucas and himself, to make a labor survey in the various printing establishments and to draft a general petition to be presented simultaneously to all managements. A campaign for a strike fund was immediately launched in preparation for a general walkout if the petition was rejected. The press capitalists were so impressed with the determination and unity of their workers that they submitted to the demands which included wage hikes ranging from 100 to 500 percent. As a result of this successful campaign, the prestige and leadership of Crisanto Evangelista rose.

President Quezon, in an attempt to undermine the proven strength of the UIF, appointed Evangelista as a member of the Philippine Independence Mission to the United States in 1919. The mission though gave Evangelista the chance to meet and evaluate the various American labor leaders and organizations. He noted the reactionary and racial policies of the American Federation of Labor led by Samuel Gompers. He also came across more materials on scientific socialism and he was positively influenced by the widespread enthusiasm of the workers to launch a Third International.

Maintaining a high political consciousness over its daily economic struggle, the UIF, under the energetic leadership of Crisanto Evangelista, struck for the cause of national freedom and integrity in 1920 against all the American-owned and American-controlled newspapers which had suddenly waged a press campaign to forestall the movement for national independence and denigrate the Filipino people as incompetent for self-government and, therefore, deserving of further U.S. imperialist “tutelage.”

In 1922, Evangelista established the Partido Obrero (Workers’ Party), the precursor of the Communist Party of the Philippines. On May 1, 1927, the COF elected Francisco Varona president and Crisanto Evangelista secretary. On this day, it decided to affiliate with the Red International of Labor Unions. This was the culmination of Filipino labor participation in the Canton Conference of 1925, and in the conferences where the Filipino representatives discussed with the representatives of other national labor organizations (especially those from the East), shared their experiences in economic and political struggle and arrived at the conclusion that since they all faced Western imperialism they needed to band together in equality and in coordination against the common enemy.

In 1928, a more extensive contact of Filipino labor leaders with the international labor movement occurred. The leaders of COF, headed by Crisanto Evangelista, attended conferences in Shanghai, Moscow and Berlin. This development frightened the U.S. colonial government and it instructed its agents to make trouble in the COF. U.S. imperialism was afraid that the Filipino proletariat would derive greater strength by coordinating its efforts with the international labor movement.

On May 1, 1929, the COF split into the yellow faction led by Ruperto Cristobal and the red faction led by Crisanto Evangelista. The former packed the meeting hall with his own men and the latter had no alternative but to bolt. In this manner, the COF became inutile and a more militant and more progressive labor federation, Katipunan ng mga Anak Pawis, arose in June 1929. At the close of the third decade, Crisanto Evangelista emerged as the most outstanding leader in the trade union movement, extending his influence to Visayas and Mindanao by maintaining fraternal relations with the Federacion Obrero de Filipinas of Jose Maria Nava.

The Communist Party of the Philippines

Pursuing the objective of creating a solid political instrument of the working class, which he had earlier attempted in the Partido Obrero, Crisanto Evangelista established the Communist Party of the Philippines which would be imbued with Marxism-Leninism. Supported by the Katipunan ng mga Anak Pawis and the Katipunang Pambansang Mambubukid sa Pilipinas, the chief organizations of the trade union movement and the peasant movement respectively, the Communist Party of the Philippines was founded on August 26, 1930, and formally launched on November 7, 1930, thus bringing into an alliance the working class and the peasantry.

The Communist Party of the Philippines immediately became the object of concerted vilification and provocations by the ruling class and the U.S. colonial government. It faced immediately the same reactionary forces of imperialism and feudalism which thwarted the Philippine Revolution at the turn of the century and the first labor federation, the Union Obrera Democratica, in 1902 and 1903.

On May 1, 1931, workers marching under the two o’clock sun were bombarded with jets of water at Maypajo, Caloocan, upon the orders of the U.S. colonial regime. Subsequently, the meeting of the workers to celebrate the day was raided by American secret policemen and constabulary soldiers. The jails of Manila were filled with industrial workers and peasants. Twenty-eight communist leaders headed by Crisanto Evangelista, Juan Feleo, Guillermo Capadocia and Mariano Balgos were singled out from hundreds of arrested workers and were accused of sedition and illegal assembly. The leaders were given considerably long prison terms, others were banished. The Communist Party was outlawed, only a few months after its establishment. Provincial governors and town presidents were instructed by the U.S. colonial regime not to give any permit to the KAP and KPMP for any gathering.

It was only when the demand for the Popular Front grew stronger, as a result of the depression and worsened condition of the masses, that President Quezon pardoned the imprisoned and banished labor leaders in 1936. The Roosevelt government, in an antifascist act of expediency, acceded to the clamor for the release of the Communist Party leaders; communist parties in all parts of the world had become the most reliable antifascist fighters.

At the same time, Quezon tried to establish labor “unity” under his leadership and he tried establishing the National Federation of Labor with government subsidy. His attempt failed and Evangelista succeeded in upholding as a matter of principle and in practice the independence of the working-class movement from the Commonwealth government.

Come 1938, the Communist Party of the Philippines became numerically stronger as it merged with the Socialist Party led by Pedro Abad Santos. Through this merger, it made up for the years when it was outlawed and its leaders were either in prison or banished. The Socialist Party, which had become strong in the countryside, brought the peasantry in greater number to the Communist Party of the Philippines. The latter party had continued to enjoy the support of the proletariat even in its underground years, as proven when it again emerged.

In 1939, Crisanto Evangelista made another consolidation in the trade union movement and organized the Collective Labor Movement. This later became an organic part of the anti- Japanese resistance movement.

At this point, we give recognition to the profound development of the ideology, politics and organization of the working class under the leadership of Crisanto Evangelista. With respect to ideology, the working class started to grasp the universal theory of Marxism-Leninism. With respect to politics, the Communist Party started to make the working class a significant force in the struggle for national democracy. With respect to organization, the Communist Party of the Philippines was established as a definite working-class party.

A serious shortcoming of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Philippines, before the contradiction between the Filipino people and Japanese fascism became the principal contradiction, was the failure to place the principal stress on the national and agrarian struggle against U.S. imperialism and feudalism. The leadership was well-versed in the contradiction between the proletariat and the capitalist class in general, but it failed all the time to stress the fact that the main contradiction within the Philippine society then was between U.S. imperialism and feudalism on the one hand and the Filipino people, mainly the workers and peasants, on the other hand. While all the workers, Marxist or not, demanded Philippine independence from U.S. imperialism, the matter of national liberation was obscured by the slogans of class struggle between the capitalist class and the working class.

The Communist Party of the Philippines was so immersed in legal and urban struggles that it was unprepared to wage armed struggle against Japanese fascism immediately. Crisanto Evangelista and other leaders of the Party were apprehended in the city by the Japanese a month after enemy occupation of Manila. Evangelista died a patriotic death in the hands of the Japanese fascists.

During the war, the CPP failed to make use of the Popular Front and the antifascist struggle as an occasion for building up anti-imperialism that would last the duration of the war and be capable of meeting the return of U.S. imperialism. Had the people been prepared to fight the return of U.S. imperialism, the slogan of “democratic peace” would not have been raised to allow the U.S. imperialists to crush the forces of national democracy, which broadly included not only the Communist Party of the Philippines and the HUKBALAHAP but even such a party as the Democratic Alliance.

The Japanese Occupation put the trade union movement into disarray as industrial and commercial activity became irregular and fell under the control of the aggressor.

Congress of Labor Organizations

In 1945, therefore, the Committee of Labor Organizations practically started from scratch after the ruin of war. It emerged from the ranks of the newly installed workers and came under the leadership of Mariano Balgos, Amado V. Hernandez and Manuel Joven, Felixberto Olalia, Pedro Castro and Cipriano Cid—to mention only a few. The committee within a short time became the Congress of Labor Organizations, embracing all genuine labor organizations.

As the leading and most comprehensive organization of the workers, the Congress of Labor Organizations became a massive force for national democracy. It became an effective instrument of the working class in seeking economic welfare and also in fighting for the true independence of the Filipino people.

Led by ardent patriots, the CLO found itself in the city fighting vigorously against the measures the U.S. government and the monopoly-capitalist class behind it wanted to impose upon the Filipino people in order to perpetuate colonial control and influence over our national life.

Against the basic principle of self-determination, the U.S. government arrogated into itself the power to “grant” sovereignty and independence to the Filipino people in an act of the U.S. Congress. In the U.S.-RP Treaty of General Relations of July 4, 1946, which made the “grant” of independence, it is stated that the U.S. government would retain control over military bases strategically placed all over the archipelago.

Against this background of imperialist chicanery and a treaty which retained the basic coercive instruments of U.S. imperialism in the Philippines, the Congress of Labor Organizations girded itself for other measures that were still to be rammed down our throats. It opposed the Bell Trade Act, which would extend the conditions of “free trade” and grant to U.S. citizens the right to exploit our natural resources and operate public utilities, necessitating the Parity Amendment of the Philippine Constitution.

U.S. imperialism prostituted democratic processes by expelling through its puppets the duly-elected members of Congress belonging to the Democratic Alliance and to the anti-imperialist wing of the Nacionalista Party, who were determined to block the passage of the Bell Trade Act and the ratification of the Parity Amendment in 1948. Despite the broad character of the Democratic Alliance, the reactionaries tried to pin it down as a subversive organization.

Not satisfied with expelling the duly-elected members of Congress who opposed its anti-Filipino designs, U.S. imperialism also engaged in sinister actions which did physical harm to members of the Democratic Alliance and the mass organizations supporting it. The Congress of Labor Organizations became the object of imperialist-guided attacks in all forms, in propaganda and actual murder. Its Secretary General, Manuel Joven, became a victim of kidnapping and assassination.

In 1951, in the course of the white terror campaign against persons and groups suspected of having association with the Communist Party of the Philippines, the national headquarters of the Congress of Labor Organizations was raided and its leaders and members were arrested en masse. The Congress of Labor Organizations was forced out of legal existence at the prompting of U.S. imperialism. This abuse of democracy was made in the name of democracy by the CIA-directed Ramon Magsaysay.

As borne out thirteen years later by a Supreme Court decision on Amado Hernandez et al, on May 30, 1964, acquitting Hernandez and other leaders of the CLO and “upholding” the right of expression and free assembly, the action of Magsaysay was indeed an attack against democracy, particularly those rights piously invoked by the Supreme Court, and also a dastardly attack against the national-democratic movement in which the CLO had excelled by fighting for our most basic national interests.

After every major imperialist crackdown on the Filipino labor movement, attempts are made by reactionary agents to take over the field. Since 1951, various attempts have been made to take over where the CLO left off. The American Jesuits put up their Institute of Social Order and the Federation of Free Workers. The U.S. imperialists—through their labor attaches and the AFL-CLO representatives—have directly extended subsidies to all sorts of puppet organizations and organizers. The International Labor Organization has also been used to subvert and redirect the labor movement in the Philippines, ideologically, politically and organizationally. The Philippine Trade Union Council was put up under the direction of U.S. agents in the International Labor Organization. The Asian Labor Education Center was also put up and assured by American foundations of continuous subsidy in order to subvert the thinking of the Filipino working class. The line of the counterrevolutionaries, as before, is to make the working class bend backwards to suit U.S. imperialism and to prevent it from developing a revolutionary consciousness.

Together with the agents of imperialism and clericalism, labor racketeers have flourished on the seeming carcass of a labor movement. But a class-conscious and anti-imperialist proletariat, with a clear socialist perspective, will surely rise up.

The CLO was busted to stop it from rallying the workers under the banner of national democracy and to leave the field wide open for all sorts of misleaders. U.S. imperialism was the leading enemy force behind the suppression of the CLO as it was previously in the case of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, the UOD, the COF and the CPP.

But the Filipino workers will prevail in the long run as they have always risen from the most trying crises imposed by their class enemy, U.S. monopoly capitalism. They know well now that their class enemy is U.S. monopoly capitalism, which squeezes the surplus value created by Filipino labor in the most exploitative way by bringing out of our country superprofits from its investments and in this way depresses internal economic growth. They also know well now that it is U.S. imperialism, through its military instruments, agents and bases right here within our national territory, which provides the puppet state with its coercive power. They now see through the subtlety of U.S. power and influence in all organs of the ruling class, whether bureaucratic, political, cultural, economic or police and military.

The progressive labor leaders of today are again developing the labor movement as an instrument of national democracy. As they realize that other patriotic classes, groups and elements are involved in the anti-imperialist struggle, they are learning in practice how to move with them and how to mass themselves against the chief enemy, U.S. monopoly capitalism or imperialism.

That the labor movement has consistently advanced despite the difficulties already described is best proven by the establishment of the Lapiang Manggagawa (Workers’ Party) in 1963. It was established with the biggest number of labor following at that time. However, at the present moment, it is seriously faced with the danger of disintegration from which it has evidently suffered through four years of existence, apparently, because of the deleterious impact of bourgeois politics which wracks the leadership every election time and because of the right-wing opportunism of certain elements and also because of narrow interfederation amor propio. But in the most objective manner of criticism, let me state that a party like the Lapiang Manggagawa, which tries to assume the role of leadership, will be strong only if it fulfills certain conditions in the fields of ideology, politics and organization.

In the ideological field, a working class party must have a truly proletarian world outlook, must be able to comprehend strategic principles and must maintain a socialist perspective and orientation. It must set up an educational program which promotes among the workers a proletarian outlook, a scientific viewpoint of history, an analysis of capitalist economy and imperialism, and socialism and a new democratic line. It must maintain workers’ schools at all levels. It must hold conferences on problems affecting the working class. It must set up a newspaper to serve as an ideological vehicle. Above all, it must, through actual mass struggle, raise the revolutionary consciousness of the people.

In the field of political activity, a workers’ party must be able to daily carry out concrete militant struggle for national democracy. It must build itself up not only among the workers but also among the peasants. It must arouse and mobilize the peasant masses for agrarian revolution, the key to the victory of the national-democratic revolution. It must respond promptly to the daily shifting demands of the anti-imperialist and the anti-feudal struggle, independently and in cooperation with all other anti-imperialist and anti-feudal forces and organizations. It should be alert to valuable alliances and keep on the alert after such alliances have been formed. It must have the firm and single objective of developing and acquiring political power for the masses.

In the field of organization, a workers’ party must be guided by the principle of democratic centralism. It must require individual membership from masses of all patriotic classes willing to assume the proletarian viewpoint. It must draw the greatest number of members and put up the greatest number of branches among the workers and peasants. It must build up itself on a nationwide scale to achieve the capability of withstanding the well-oiled bourgeois parties of the ruling class. It must arrive at organizational plans and must be able to fulfill them within the given period of time with all given party assets and resources clear beforehand. Organizations at all levels, from the branch upward, must be maintained on a daily basis and not on a seasonal basis during election years as it is in the NP and LP.

In our review of the trade union movement and its connection with the national-democratic movement, we have concluded with the tasks of building up a proletarian party. Without a proletarian party to provide leadership, the struggle for national democracy cannot be won. #