Allegedly CPP-NPA-NDF front partylist for the 2013 elections

[machinecult]

---

they don't like our government and so they arm theirselves and declared revolution and for this we condem them.. for argument sake this is true, now that they are in the diplomatic form of revolution or shall we say they are now in the open we still condem them... i don't understand.

That's because Communism functions in two ways; armed struggle and through political reform (paper and sword). Their functions might differ but their purpose is the same. We can condemn and resist armed revolution but not their political fronts, that's why.

[folly]

That's because Communism functions in two ways; armed struggle and through political reform (paper and sword). Their functions might differ but their purpose is the same. We can condemn and resist armed revolution but not their political fronts, that's why.

This is not true for all strands of communism. Maoism or national democracy, the ideology to which the CPP subscribes to, believes in the idea of a protracted people's war. What this means is the war against the State will be long. This makes them different from other communist insurgencies such as those influenced by Che Guevarra (Focu theory) or of Leon Trotsky (permanent revolution). This is also depends on the analysis of the Party of the country's condition. For the CPP, the traditional analysis based on their book "Philippine Society and Revolution" the CPP is clear in pursuing armed struggle and disdaining legal struggle. However, the conditions of Philippine Society changed especially during the removal of Estrada. In 2001, the CPP for the first time since the Partido ng Bayan electoral engagement of 1987, joined the elections using the newly formed electoral partylist Bayan Muna. Of course this is purely for resource mobilization and an adjunct to and secondary to the armed struggle.

So, I disagree with the thesis that Communism functions in those two ways. In reality Communism functions differently depending on the strand. And furthermore, in the case of the CPP armed struggle is still the primary and highest form of struggle for the people. Electoral struggle is still secondary. So, if the CPP will take power, it will not be through elections but through outright violent power grab.

[emow]

NPA is a bully who wants to replace the current bully...communism nor socialism, no matter how it is empowered, through force or through democracy, is incompatible with liberty.... i don't care if a politican is advocating for the masses, as long as he endorses socialism or communism, he is dangerous to individual rights.

[machinecult]

This is not true for all strands of communism. Maoism or national democracy, the ideology to which the CPP subscribes to, believes in the idea of a protracted people's war. What this means is the war against the State will be long. This makes them different from other communist insurgencies such as those influenced by Che Guevarra (Focu theory) or of Leon Trotsky (permanent revolution). This is also depends on the analysis of the Party of the country's condition. For the CPP, the traditional analysis based on their book "Philippine Society and Revolution" the CPP is clear in pursuing armed struggle and disdaining legal struggle. However, the conditions of Philippine Society changed especially during the removal of Estrada. In 2001, the CPP for the first time since the Partido ng Bayan electoral engagement of 1987, joined the elections using the newly formed electoral partylist Bayan Muna. Of course this is purely for resource mobilization and an adjunct to and secondary to the armed struggle.

So, I disagree with the thesis that Communism functions in those two ways. In reality Communism functions differently depending on the strand. And furthermore, in the case of the CPP armed struggle is still the primary and highest form of struggle for the people. Electoral struggle is still secondary. So, if the CPP will take power, it will not be through elections but through outright violent power grab.

Well thank you for elaborating it but by reading this it does confirm that their method for takeover functions in mainly two ways. They can pretend and set themselves up to be at odds or even belligerent with each other even accusing one from the other of 'red-baiting'. I hope what you say is true but I normally regard these as false issues and merely decoys to gain sympathy or solid support with those who are on the democratic left. If and when the political wing succeeds they have to call on their armed wing because they could never function with the established military so I guess this is when the violent power grabbing, as you say, happens.

[Hammer_and_Sickle]

democracy breeds communism, a man with a communist ideology could just simply hide in the shroud of freedom of expression, the right that is granted by a democratic country.

pucha, daghan na sa UP oy, de lang ka'y kanang mga partylist

[emow]

very true... that's why the founding fathers of america hated democracy...and consciously omitted the term democracy in their constitution... the ideologies of communism are only dangerous when the government slowly adopts them...

[æRLO]

very true... that's why the founding fathers of america hated democracy...and consciously omitted the term democracy in their constitution... the ideologies of communism are only dangerous when the government slowly adopts them...

They hated democracy because they believed the common man is not competent about choosing leadership. They were scared if a despot or a demagogue was to come along, the 'sheeple' would easily put them into power. In a way, they were looking for a sort of plutocracy.

It is the excess of the bourgeoisie that bred communism. Simply put, it is a product of a basic human emotion, which is envy.

[emow]

They hated democracy because they believed the common man is not competent about choosing leadership. They were scared if a despot or a demagogue was to come along, the 'sheeple' would easily put them into power. In a way, they were elitists.

It is the excess of the bourgeoisie that bred communism.

Not really the reason, on the contrary, it is the utmost respect of their founding fathers for the sacredness of individual rights... the idea that the majority can vote whatever the destiny of the minority is unacceptable to them, especially to Thomas Jefferson who penned the Constitution... These are unique individuals in their time, for having establish a government that is chained, limited and duty bound by the Constitution to not interfere with the affairs of man on his personal life...no welfare, no subsidies, no guarantees of a happy life, only the promise of protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...

Communism/Socialism exist inherently in most of us...we are somehow innately desire to use authority over others, especially those who are "failures" in our eyes... to use the government to bring the utmost good for the most number of people, even to the point of ignoring minority rights...

[æRLO]

Not really the reason, on the contrary, it is the utmost respect of their founding fathers for the sacredness of individual rights... the idea that the majority can vote whatever the destiny of the minority is unacceptable to them, especially to Thomas Jefferson who penned the Constitution... These are unique individuals in their time, for having establish a government that is chained, limited and duty bound by the Constitution to not interfere with the affairs of man on his personal life...no welfare, no subsidies, no guarantees of a happy life, only the promise of protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...

Communism/Socialism exist inherently in most of us...we are somehow innately desire to use authority over others, especially those who are "failures" in our eyes... to use the government to bring the utmost good for the most number of people, even to the point of ignoring minority rights...

By individual rights you mean, rich white men who have property, then yes, that is correct. Then, suffrage is exclusive to those men. You have to remember, at the time the constitution was drafted, the "individual" or "citizen" encompassed a very specific group of people, whereas today it is inclusive of all Americans.

[emow]

By individual rights you mean, rich white men who have property, then yes, that is correct. Then, suffrage is exclusive to those men. You have to remember, at the time the constitution was drafted, the "individual" or "citizen" encompassed a very specific group of people, whereas today it is inclusive of all Americans.

Yes, that is partly correct.... however, it is extended towards all the poor immigrants from Europe, and asia... They were not a perfect society but it was the closest to anything that resembles full liberty... Bastiat applauded their establishment of the Republic but criticized them for the exclusion of some minorities, like blacks and some native americans...But americans were not the only guilty ones, since they have inherited such a tradition, repulsive in todays standards, by their British handlers... Yes, many of the founding fathers were rich, educated, and philosophical, but it could not be denied that it was a significant time for an ordinary man (except for blacks, and some minorities) to become more than his parents... Before that revolution, in most places in the world, man exist nothing more than how his parents existed... now, that american constitution served as framework for most new emerging nations... it was the only part of the recent history of man that had a huge jump of improvement of the quality of life in the average man....