MERGED: CPP-NPA-NDF Discussions (Issues, Updates, etc.)

[free_thinker]

---

This is the CPP's website: www.philippinerevolution.org

I've read all the entries.

As an academic, I've come to the conclusion that it is mostly propaganda.

Since this is the only information privvy to us--"non-party members", how can we gage how effective their struggle is, or how wise their solution given?


Are you For or Against the Communist Party of the Philippines? Why or Why not?

[gareb]

before we even tackle the subject, we must be aware of what these people are fighting for, and if the situations that they are showing to us are real or not.

does these apply to us?
are these relevant?
are the things that are showing to us really happening?
is the image that they paint of the society real or not?

only after we have answered these questions can we really asses if what they are doing.. the armed struggle... is worthy of our support or is it but plain anarchy.



i fear that the use the word 'propaganda' in this context is misealding and is dangerous. the word 'propaganda' is not bad nor is it evil. the government is even doing it in its ads and all...

it is as if to use the term 'propaganda' is a mortal sin when it is only but another word to 'to convince through valid arguments'

[free_thinker]

before we even tackle the subject, we must be aware of what these people are fighting for, and if the situations that they are showing to us are real or not.

this is a great start.

does these apply to us?
are these relevant?
are the things that are showing to us really happening?
is the image that they paint of the society real or not?

to answer all the questions you've posted above, YES. poverty, corruption, imperialism, education, land rights, the rich, population, etc. all these concern us, and we should be concern about these issues. we don't really have to argue about the above issues. YES, we are angry at the current status of our nation. but, the question is: IS ARMED STRUGGLE THE ONLY SOLUTION?

only after we have answered these questions can we really asses if what they are doing.. the armed struggle... is worthy of our support or is it but plain anarchy.

according to the CPP, armed struggle is the only solution. Why? Are there no alternatives that require less bloodshed?

i fear that the use the word 'propaganda' in this context is misealding and is dangerous. the word 'propaganda' is not bad nor is it evil. the government is even doing it in its ads and all...

propaganda is just the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. it is one sided.

it is as if to use the term 'propaganda' is a mortal sin when it is only but another word to 'to convince through valid arguments'

'valid' arguments mean examining all the perspectives of an issue, and discussing through those points. propaganda is one sided, which supports an ideology. the farmers and peasants in the country side are given one sided accounts of a more complex reality, and so are the impressionable young students in the city.

there's a big difference between information one obtains from ideological propaganda and knowledge through academic discussion. propaganda is swallowed whole, while academic knowledge is chewed and pondered over, questioned and supported thru authoritative accounts.

[gareb]

'valid' arguments mean examining all the perspectives of an issue, and discussing through those points. propaganda is one sided, which supports an ideology. the farmers and peasants in the country side are given one sided accounts of a more complex reality, and so are the impressionable young students in the city.

care to elaborate on the other side of the coin that these so-called communists fail to deliver to the people in the countryside as well as the impressionable students in the cities?

[free_thinker]

when an organization paints a really bleak picture of reality, bleaker than what it really is, the next step is to justify 'martyrdom' and 'heroes who sacrifice their life for the movement'. (look up al-qaeda, and the martyrs brigade in palestine)

these martyr and heroes for the 'cause' sacrifice their lives and/or kill their 'peasant' counterparts who join the military to survive.

they are offered just one simplistic solution to a more complicated problem which requires a more sophisticated solution. the communists' solution is armed struggle.

these so-called communists FAIL, when they tell their constituents that there is only one solution in the philippines. they FAIL when they say killing or dying for the movement is the only path to progress.

"the road to hell is always paved with good intentions". armed struggle never leads to progress, it ALWAYS leads to more people getting killed.

[free_thinker]

http://www.philippinerevolution.org/...9;language=eng

The PKM (Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Magsasaka-Eastern Visayas
March 29, 2003) in Eastern Visayas salutes all the Red commanders and fighters and the revolutionary martyrs of the NPA on the occasion of its 34th anniversary. It is an utmost joy for the revolutionary peasant masses in Eastern Visayas that the NPA, the true army of the people, continues to accumulate strength and victories. For every advance in the revolutionary armed struggle principally carried out by the NPA, the greater is the hope of the most exploited and oppressed class in Philippine society the peasant class for the fulfillment of genuine land reform, national industrialization, and genuine democracy.

--------------------------------

http://www.philippinerevolution.org/...j;language=pil

On this auspicious occasion of the NDFP's 30th anniversary, as we view with pride our substantial revolutionary gains, we honor our hundreds of thousands of martyrs, heroines and heroes, whose sacrifice and total dedication to the national democratic cause of the Filipino people have been vital to the advance of the Philippine revolution. They and so many others who have suffered torture, imprisonment and other forms of state repression, deserve our revolutionary salute.

[dirk]

i agree with free_thinker, i think JoMa is somewhere in the netherlands (while other inner party officers of the communist movement live in canada, england, america, and europe) getting rich...

while filipino peasants and students die for their worn out propaganda, becoming martyrs and heroes for leaders who aren't even passionate enough to fight by their side.

[gareb]

i fear free_thinker has not really answered my question... or at least her answer does not satisfy me.

i need more ideas from you free_thinker... i believe that u may have had quite some exposure to these things, in theoretical and actual reseach perhaps. maybe u can enlighten us not just by presenting postulations but actual arguments and counter arguments.

my curiosity cannot be satisfied... but that is not a justification for me to just throw it all away and leave it at that.

[free_thinker]

care to elaborate on the other side of the coin that these so-called communists fail to deliver to the people in the countryside as well as the impressionable students in the cities?

your question, then my answer...

these so-called communists FAIL, when they tell their constituents that there is only one solution in the philippines. they FAIL when they say killing or dying for the movement is the only path to progress.

then, your suppose to either defend their 'solution' and/or present a counter argument as to why you don't believe they failed.

the question we are trying to answer is a simple one: Is Armed Rebellion the Only Solution We Have, As Communist Propaganda Insists?

[gareb]

what is it that they are trying to say?
what are their arguments upon which they base their conclusion that such armed revolution is the only solution?

if those arguments can be presented here, dissected by the people who whats to do so, and eventually seen for what it really is, whether good or bad, or true or false... then we can say that their arguments are sound or unsound.

unfortunately it hasnt been that way. we outright came to a certain conclusion without stating and seeing the assumptions on which the arguments of the adverse party is suppose to be based on.