CONSPECTUS

Of
SOCIAL ANATOMY

Collection of Notes on Marxism-Leninism and the Thought of Mao

CHAPTER 1

Relations of Men, Society and Revolution

What is Society?

We shall analyze the society into the following: the system that rules over it, and the people. The society
forever exists since time immemorial, even during the infancy of humanity, when we were still in the stage of
developing our civilization; there is a natural occurrence that draws men towards and each other forming a society. All
human beings are social in nature, from the meeting of a man and a woman towards the development of families, and
from families to clans, to tribes, this is the earliest beginnings of societies. The key reason of men to cling to their
tribes is security. Security from wild beasts, from other tribes and security for food that they may have the abundant
source of food.
Human thought is a product of their social being. Therefore it is not their thoughts that determine the kind
of society but it is their social being.
The changes impose a challenge to the social being – the individual’s role when together with other
people. When there is a time of scarcity on a certain basic need, then men and women together with their families
align themselves to who is the strongest the most skillful in accumulating their basic needs like food for example. This
idea lays the foundation of leadership in societies.
Societies emerged from the basic alliance of families. Integrating what I have written on the first article,
the relationship between the child and the parents is based not because of their conception of the child but of the
child needs his parents to supply his needs and the parents to ensure their condition when they grown old as they
need to be taken care of by their children. Families migrate, and same is true with the societies, the weak family in
the fear of death along their path to migration in search for better pastures they align themselves to the stronger
family.
Therefore human relationships are grounded in the principle of necessity. A student needs his teacher
because of a necessity to learn new things and the like.
For the full length of the text we can summarize the whole explanation on various formations into one line:
The weakest submits to the strongest as pre-conditioned by Nature in accordance to the pattern of history.
I am not a student of Evolutionary Darwinism or Social Darwinism in his main idea of the survival of the
fittest. I believe that in the alliance of the weak to the strongest, the former becomes strong too, while the latter needs
additional forces, so it is in their basic alliance that they exist. But this is not true with the aftermath of the formation of
societies and state, when the consequences have yielded undesirable results. The weak should be one with each
other they should be in alliance to one another, for it is in their basic alliance that they can develop into force and
become stronger. Same is true with the present that the proletariat should be in alliance to each other against their
oppressors. A true realization that, it is in quantity that quality emerges.
You might say that I asserted the alliance of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that may lead to the averting of the
imminent forcible overthrow of the ruling class by the workers. I assert the contrary, I have called for the alliance of

J.K.B. Ecarma 1
the strongest and weakest on the basis of the primitive societies where classes have not yet existed, or the time of
the formation or societies, and they allied themselves to gain protection from a clear enemy outside the alliance. In
the time of capitalism, when the classes are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, I am not calling for the alliance of the
two for this may be a mere friendship and a titular union only, a temporary ceasefire that is, because they have
conflicts in class interests. I am talking about the alliance of the workers and the strongest among them – their
vanguard – the Communist Party.
With the victory of the workers to be led by the Communist Party will destroy the state under the bourgeois
control while they establish it anew. This newly established state formed under the dictatorship of the proletariat will
soon wither away when all the conditions are ripened.
Men of different societies have common situation to share with and that is their classification, either ruling
or oppressed class.
By ruling class we say on the basis of their economic power. Provided by the prevailing situation, the
ruling class are the capitalists. The ruling class gets the upper hand by using all means it may have to maintain the
essence of their status in the society by continually oppressing the class under it. Why does it oppress, because it is
the way to keep their status as the ruling class they have the fear of losing and fading their position. They own the
means of production and through it; it has tied the workers to production. They have the capital pooled from collective
labour of the workers. In the past years the ruling class was the revolutionary one but now since they finally settle in
the realms of global power they are, for most part and the rest of history, conservative.
The case of the conservatism of the ruling class is a perfect explanation and practice on the reality that humans are
specimens to justify the steadfast flow of history. That history follows its own pattern and we humans can’t do
anything but to bring about that next stage set by history itself. Humans cannot set a stage for history to follow but
humans may speed up the transition either by revolution. The capitalists will soon fall into the hands of the class it
gears to rule soon, the workers.
The workers under the present conditions are part of the oppressed class. For the past centuries they are
under the exploitation of the ruling class. They don’t have the capital to subjugate the labour pf others and are merely
owned by the ruling class as part of the productive forces. They are without property thus they sell their labour as a
commodity. They can keep their work as long as they can generate more capital to the capitalists. Why are they
allowing themselves to be oppressed? This is due to the mentality that the ruling class infused to their minds. And so
in response they act according to their status in the society. Based on the present system the workers are the
revolutionary class, who has the potential and the upper hand to topple the old regime. When the proletariat will be
raised to the position as the ruling class and will be able to win the battle of democracy, they will use their political
supremacy to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie after all, the capital came from the labour of the workers. The
workers will centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state under their (proletariat) dictatorship.
Proven by history in the rivalry between the ruling class and the oppressed class is the concept that
whoever rules, it is their ideas that prevail. Cultural hegemony, that is, that whatever is the idea of the ruing class is
accepted and becomes the norms of a certain society. The ruling ideas are that of the ruling class. From here emerge
the laws and norms of the society. The ruling class infiltrated the government and the state as a whole and sets for
itself laws in accordance to what the ruling class believes in. This is the reason why a reconstitution of the society at
large is essential, to infused in the society the ideas of the new ruling class. They introduce their ideas in order to
remain in the position to rule by different ways and means. Like for example education, religion, and political ideology.
That is why whatever idea contrary to that of the ruling class is said to be a leftist one and is considered to be the
morally incorrect.

J.K.B. Ecarma 2
 The ruling class uses its entire means to pool all the powers and stretch it to the extremes. One of the
instruments of oppression used by the ruling class is the State.
Before going into deeper arguments, let us define state. A state is composed of four (4) elements: people,
government, territory and sovereignty. People – we, the citizens of this country either by birth or by choice, those who
have liabilities to the nation’s laws and constitution. Government – the authority in a country, that which oversees the
day-to-day activities of the state. It centralizes the whole territory under one political control. Sovereignty – freedom
given to a country which gives a package-deal of full independence, acknowledge by different states. It has the
quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that
rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. Territory – the land under which it falls
to the jurisdiction of the government.
In native times, the absence of the state has proved its efficacy. Without the state men and women
equally shared what they have out from a hunting-gathering economy. They don’t even know the words state,
government and most especially sovereignty. The state is a product of the society at a certain stage of economic
development. With its presence it is an admission that the class antagonism is irreconcilable. When the society splits
into different camps – classes, the concept of state is gradually introduced. They say that the state exists so as to
become the sort of mediator or reconciler. It is to alleviate the conflict and in order to do so, it needs the military, the
police the correctional facilities i.e. prisons. State emerged as a result of class antagonism. Well in fact the state is
another form of the ruling class’ instrument to oppress the lower classes. They created the state to their benefit,
through making it work by distributing the wealth which will all eventually fall into the hands of the few. And states
only legalize the oppression. This is because of the orientation that is infused to the nature of the state that is to lean
on what side has the power. All its organs are magnetized too; the military the government and everything in
between.
When civilizations flourished, men started to go into bigger communities then to towns and cities and so
on. As time went on, property settled into the hands of the few, population rose, and the consequence was political
centralization. Here emerged the essential element of a state that even the least possible provinces to unite became
one as a country.
State as discussed acts when the society is divided into two camps, into classes and when this happen
the ruling class has to improvise a means to catapult itself to dominance and superiority and in order to accumulate
more wealth and oppress the lower class. Yet they insist that the state is to reconcile the classes and put into one
path which is nationalism. But when we achieve victory the state created by the ruling class will be abolished and
what will assume is a state under the dictatorship of the revolutionary class and as we head on to full communism,
when classes are totally eradicated the state will just wither away.
The state today is defined under the standards of the ruling class. Reality speaks that the state is an instrument by
the ruling class and exists only for their own gain.

Marxism-Leninism and the Thought of Mao: an Overview

A familiar question is always raised by people out of curiosity or mockery: “what is communism in one
line?” I then usually quote a line that of Friedrich Engels on his book: Principles of Communism, the draft preceding
the creation of Communist Manifesto that he and Marx later wrote. He said: “Communism is the doctrine of the
conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.” Indeed the shortest definition ever given yet still hard for people to
understand. Within its few words, countless movements, struggles have revolved. Thousands of men and women
looked hopefully into these words for guidance. Communism is a certain stage in the history of mankind. This is the

J.K.B. Ecarma 3
stage that concludes all the other and justifies all the faults of the past. If we look into the past we will discover that in
its long run, it is also a venue of class struggle, a clash between men of different dispositions and conditions in life.
This observation, we credit to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as they wrote in the book Communist Manifesto:
“Freeman and slaves, patrician and plebian, lords and serfs, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word: oppressor and
oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another” Out from the words we can infer that the earliest stage are
the primitive communist communities, when economy is solely dependent on hunting-gathering, whatever is hunted
by men in the tribe is shared equally among all. Out from this practice we develop one of the ideas key to the
communist ideology and that is: the common ownership. This stage is far from perfect and not even better to any
other stage since human experience sums up their desire for a better social system and in these early times humanity
is still at its infancy. This stage is succeeded by the slave society, when men are classified into classes: the freeman,
the slaves and the slave-owners, later in history this stage took its reincarnated stage in a new different approach
which will be discussed later. The slave in his lifetime is subject to the oppression of his master, he is tied to his labor
as he is used as one of the means of production. There are no clear historical records relating to the shift of the
stages but rather credited to the signs of the times: when material basis provided the signal for change, when men
were naturally brought ashore to a new historical stage. Usually out of study we can conclude that those who became
masters of the slaves were the strongest men in the tribe and the weak became the slaves. Another possible reason
is the scarcity of resources when one tribe has to venture out to territories of other tribes prompting tribal wars, and
the captured soldiers usually become the slaves as war booty. Next to slave societies is true to most of the northern
hemisphere: Europe, Asia Minor, and northern Africa, when one of the greatest powers emerged: the Roman Empire.
Men and women were classified to as patrician, the rich citizens of the empire while the poor goes to the plebeian
class. While it also retained the slave concept, when rebels from occupied territories fell into the hands of the legion.
It ruled for hundreds of years, until external problems began plaguing the empire: the barbarians from the east. As it
is continually attacked from its borders and adding insult to injury is political instability as it had ineffective leadership
in the person of their emperors. Until the empire fell, giving rise to the next stage: Feudalism. It is the system
dominant in the decentralized kingdoms around Europe when the Roman Empire dissolved. This became the result
since; people have to seek protection from land-owning lords and kings from the raiding barbaric tribes, in exchange
of their labor to the estates owned by their lords. Thus creating classes: the lords, the serfs and the lowest of all the
peasants. The people had been left with no choice at all and were in the middle of the devil and the deep blue sea
situation. If they won’t subject themselves to the authority of the lord they will be most likely killed by the barbarians.
After feudalism, what emerged is the present stage: the capitalist stage. This prompted large migrations of
men and women from the countryside to the cities attracted to the new factories created after the Industrial
Revolution. People became accustomed to the idea of capitalism which is the making use of capital for personal
profit. What catered the way from the old stage is the increase in the world population, and that production carried out
by feudal estates can no longer keep up with the rising demands. The discovery of the New World which is America
by Christopher Columbus gave way for the rich to begin investing their wealth in the transfer of materials from the
new territory to their home continent, Europe. The creation of cities due to the rising number of people and the
formation of nation-states paved the way to the emergence of capitalism. This stage has narrowed down the
complexity of class struggle from three or more classes to two: proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The ruling class is the
bourgeois who in the later part of feudalism became the revolutionary class opposing the rule of feudal lords, as they
themselves were oppressed by the ruling class of feudalism. One perfect example is the French Revolution. When
they called for the abolition of the monarchy, which is the symbol of feudal authority and rallied the people towards
the streets culminating in the execution of the French king Louis XV and his wife Marie Antoinette. As feudalism fell,

J.K.B. Ecarma 4
the ruling class also died out but some of their remnants fused into the new ruling class which is the bourgeois. On
the other hand, the proletariat or the workers became the oppressed and revolutionary class.
What shall follow is communism, the last stage in history. When the workers who were once at the bottom
of the social ladder and oppressed by hundred of years will rule the society. This rule shall be materialized by a
Communist Party. A party that is described by Vladimir Lenin as vanguard party, which will secure the rule of the
working class for years, will regulate the new order will run the government in be half of the workers which comprises
the majority of the population. It represents the struggle itself; its existence testifies the commitment of the people
towards establishing communism. The Communist Party should be the core of the struggle, the powerhouse of the
revolution.
If we are observant enough, we can infer that the principle being observed by the pillars of communism
(Marx and Engels) in the analysis of history is dialectical materialism, which is studying stages as interconnected to
one another, not isolating one stage to the other. Such is due to the material basis which is the primary reason for the
change from the previous to the next. Had it not been to the innovations brought about by the Industrial Revolution,
capitalism could not have emerged. We can all conclude that the development of history is credited to the conflict,
the contradiction which is the relationship of the opposites. Each stage has set itself a specific means of how it should
be negated in order to give rise for the next stage.

Revolution and Revolutionaries

We shall not be talking about occurrences in the past rather I shall present the truth in every historical
happening, a complete analysis of what drive the people into engaging such struggles. Like earthquakes, and
volcanic eruptions, revolutions are also natural phenomena. First since men who spearhead revolutions are
themselves – nature. It is when men and women take part in the revolution either by their own will for their own
benefit or due to the propaganda from which they were drawn into the movement.

We shall be confronted with different views on revolution. We shall shed light to the Two-stage Theory
which has proven its efficacy in Europe. A nation has to pass through two revolutions: first a bourgeois democratic
revolution aimed at wiping out the control of feudalism and all its elements from the society. This revolution shall be
led by the bourgeoisie since at that particular stage in history, they were the revolutionary class. They used the
workers in advancing their class interests, rallying them under the pro-mass, pro-poor slogan. And as they achieve
victory, they become the ruling class, putting the proletarians as the oppressed class. In this period, history shall
allow the expansion of capitalism to gear the world for communism. Factories and all other means of production were
developed.

After the first, what shall follow is the Communist revolution to be led by the proletariat as the revolutionary
class. This can only become possible with the presence and guidance of a Communist Party, they shall clarify the
aims and objectives of the revolution for a movement without such will soon die out. The workers can spontaneously
rise but without the leadership of the Party, then they will dive into anarchy. The Communist Party will guard the
revolution from opportunistic elements of the previous system that shall sabotage success and initiate counter-
revolutionary efforts. This stage will be called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, when all industries shall be
centralized and all the resources shall be appropriated equally among towns and cities. The government should
embrace democratic centralism, as proposed by Lenin.

J.K.B. Ecarma 5
 On the other hand, Chairman Mao Tse-tung has another solution, he called it New Democracy. This is
best for Asian countries that were subject to colonial rule. The Asian middle-class may have led the revolution for
national independence but as soon as they achieved nationhood they didn’t aim national industrialization rather
developed an advance form of feudal mode of production. This situation is caused by imperialism which according to
Lenin: is the highest and decadent stage of capitalism. Imperialism, on the other hand is caused by the discovery of
new lands prompting capitalists of other nations to transfer surplus capital to the new territories. They apply pressure
to their respective governments in occupying the new land since it is still fresh and they can have monopoly over the
markets. In this case, Asian countries are late in terms of the path to communism unlike other European countries
that are just waiting for the right time for the Communist Revolution. New Democracy aims at sneaking directly into
communism without passing the first stage, but in the process it shall crash the old feudalism, and advance
industrialization.

There are conflicting ideas of what is best, socialism in one country or global revolution. The first is
associated with Joseph Stalin of USSR while the second one is to Leon Trotsky, founder of Red Army. Socialism in
one country is practiced in the USSR then as it allowed socialism to be perfected in its own territories mainly based in
Russia, to ripen the theory and practice of Marxism in one country; it then failed and in 1991 with international
pressure went into ruins, giving way to the creation of 17 independent nations and the Federation of Russia. For
years though it is observed by the Soviets amidst the sprawling global influence of capitalism. On the other hand,
global revolution or the idea of Internationalism, is calling all the other nations to go into revolution in defeating the
global enemy – the capitalists. In this way, we can secure our path to communism. Russia at that time and so as
China in the present is still not in the perfection of a Communist society, they are still in the stage of socialism – the
stage where they have to increase their production so as to double their wealth in order to be equipped as soon as
they reached Communism. With only few countries under the Socialist system, they become isolated in a highly
capitalist world, like China it is now beginning to decline instead of a continuous progress, it slowly adopts capitalistic
elements in its economy.

CHAPTER 2

Marxist Economics

The Dynamics of Economics: on the Inter-relationship of Capital, Labour and Commodity

Wealth that are those in banks and treasury comes from the immense accumulation of commodities in
transforming them into a useful form. A commodity on the other hand can be analyzed into different aspects:
quantitative pertaining to its exchange-value and qualititative to its use-value, and the third is the labor, applied in its
production. Anything that enters into the market becomes a commodity. Market not only the structure but also the
individual transactions of buyer and seller. Exchange-value is its price corresponding to its use-value. Labor, since

J.K.B. Ecarma 6
without this, commodities cannot be derived from the available raw materials. With the resources on hand, man will
be able to yield different products out from it. Therefore labor played an important role in the nation’s accumulation of
wealth, had it not been for them, then no commodities can be produced.
Commodity can be converted into different form corresponding to its value through different metamorphoses: either
C-M-C or M-C-M.
Let us take the first C-M-C; through the example of a man selling his weaved linen as in the example of
Marx in his book. His linen ultimately turns into money say for example PhP 200.00. In return he sets out to buy
another commodity using the money he got out from the sale of his produced commodity. Then the cycle goes again
and again. But it does not necessarily mean that he sells again what he has bought, he may produced another
commodity and sell it again, by this way he perpetuates the first metamorphosis. In the primitive times when economy
is built over the rules of barter trade, when a commodity is exchange for another commodity of equivalent value which
is of better use for the producer of the first commodity. But now, the activity presents a new and arising question due
to the present economic conditions and activities, when all transactions are bound to the constraints of money, and
money is never found rooted in any cornfields or it can only be planted at the backyard, but money is due to labor.
The latter gives salary in the form of money, then the laborer who have just received his salary buys whatever he
desires, so if you want to omit the role of money in the fist cycle then you are suggesting bartering your labor for let
us say a pair of shoes.
The second one, M-C-M which is money to commodity then back to money again. The example is when
you have money then you go to the market and buy something which you in return sell with a surplus value as profit.
It is here in the basis of buy and sell lies the starting point of capital, making money as the start of capital which is the
final product of the circulation of commodities. It is in the pockets of the capitalists start the circulation of money and
to where it also ends either increased or doubled.
Labor in itself is a commodity owned by man (laborer). It becomes a commodity on the basis of what has
been discussed above when it the person owning it enters his commodity (labor) in the market and put it on sale. The
owner of a commodity should meet the buyer in the market and discuss the price corresponding to the value of his
labor. He should only sell it in a definite period of time otherwise he would be selling himself too as a person and not
as an owner of a commodity, making him a commodity himself, and a slave from being a free man. Once he will be
able to sell his labor as a commodity in a period of time he should not have any other commodities that can be sold
but only his labor, this is the primary requisite for selling labor. The line might be a mockery for the workers for it has
been known that they have no capacity to have a commodity because they don’t have the access to raw materials,
and they don’t have the means of production if they do then the designation for them could not have been “worker”.
Like any other commodity, labor should also be reproduced. This lies on his reproduction of life through
sexual intercourse and also though the maintenance of the laborer to justify the price designated to labor, which also
depends on the value of the means of subsistence. The latter is used to maintain the worker’s health like food, and
the other basic needs of a human being.
In the claim that labor creates capital, and capital exploits labor plus the countless statements, that the
workers purpose to the capitalists is to increase capital, we use the cycle C-M-C as the means of vindicating us from
being reproached. Capitalist sets out to the market to look for labor in exchange for money to convert his money into
capital, with labor, the production of other commodities can be realized. The finished products are then sold, thereby
giving capital and increasing it through selling the labor augmented product over its supposedly righteous price. In
this way we can have it through the formula: Money is used to buy machines and labor then it can yield commodities
then when sold it becomes money again, then it runs again.

J.K.B. Ecarma 7
 Another aspect in increasing capital is the wage for labor, which is the value for the labor. It is only the
value of labor which is paid and not its fruits. Because the laborer is paid even before his craft has been sold, so
wages depend only in the agreed price as demanded not by the laborer but by the capitalists, and so when the
capitalist sells his craft he can double the price or triple it, without adjustments to the price of labor since it is already
fixed. The capitalists pay the value of 12 hours labor by a salary only corresponding to 6 hours of labor. The unpaid
which is surplus-value becomes supplementation to the capital. What is surplus value? Surplus value can never be
yielded in the sale of commodities for it creates no profit for the capitalist, on the example of a yarn costing the
capitalist, say for example P 150.00 all in all (100 for the cotton, 30 for the wage on the basis of 6 working hours, and
20 for the maintenance of the machinery) by no means, the capitalist can sell it only for P150.00 considering the time
of labor consumed for the production, therefore no surplus-value. It comes when the worker is forced to work for 12
hours or 8 hours with the same wage as that of equivalent to 6 hours, then the commodity is sold for the price
corresponding to the time it is produced, say 12 hours. And so he can sell it doubling the price or adding P 50.00 as a
justification to the 12 hours of labor. But before he can sell the commodity he has already fixed the wage of the
laborer, giving no room for adjustments based on the sales. So the capitalist has produced his surplus value from the
6 hours of unpaid labor.
To sum up the relations between capital and labor, we say: “Capital is multiplied if exchanged to labor and
the latter can exchange itself to increase capital.” And “The worker perishes if capital does not keep him busy, capital
perishes if it does not exploit labor, to exploit it, it must buy labor.”

CHAPTER 3

On the Philippine Question

The Philippines indeed has a rich history of class struggle heightened especially during the colonial era
started with the Spanish occupation for 300 years, the Americans for bout 40 years and the Japanese during the brief
period of World War II. Throughout history there have been conflicts between those in power and those who are
struggling through the abuses of power.
We cannot consider the Philippine Revolution as a class revolution since; the workers are one with the
“ilustrados” in fighting the Spanish regime in the islands. The great plebeian, Andres Bonifacio led the struggle
alongside with the rich Filipinos: Dr. Jose Rizal and Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo. The rich revolutionaries aimed for
independence since they want to sit in power, they want to rule over the islands unlike with that of Andres Bonifacio
who desired for the propagation of democratic rights for the masses. They were just used by the “ilustrados” to
advance class interests. This ended up with the execution of Andres Bonifacio in the hands of his fellow Filipino
revolutionary.
Had the revolution been properly guided it could have been directed to a National Democratic revolution
instead of settling it into a movement for independence only. As soon as it has become the national democratic
struggle Philippines could have walk into the path for national industrialization. But truth is, everything turned out to
be the opposite the rich Filipinos assumed the control of the economy from the Spaniards, retaining the elements of
feudalism and they owned the haciendas of the friars.
With the present conditions, we could not follow with strict obedience the Two-stage Theory and thus
adhere to the Maoist concept of New Democracy being spearheaded in the mountains by the Communist Party of the

J.K.B. Ecarma 8
Philippines/New People’s Army established on December 26, 1968 by Prof. Jose Maria Sison which is until to this
day still operational and achieving quite a number of victories over the Philippine Army.
The Philippine society is both semi-colonial and semi-feudal. It is semi-feudal due to the continued U.S.
monopoly over the feudal mode of production, and semi-colonial due to their imperialist policies where raw materials
never end up in Philippine factories but abroad instead, to Japan and the United States. It is plagued with different
evils choking the society these are: bureaucrat capitalism, feudalism, and Imperialism and the compradors.
Bureaucrat capitalism is the conspiracy of the economy by the local traders and its foreign connections.
They ensure the position of foreign investment and products in the Philippine market. They exploit the country’s
cheap resources and labor-power, thereby producing and increasing their capital. Why cheap? Because of their
dollar, they always fight for the increase in the purchasing power and exchanging power of dollar by devaluation of
the Philippine peso. Feudalism due to the present number of haciendas closely related to the estates owned by lords.
Imperialism mostly from the United States and now has assumed a different form which is globalization. Globalization
has its roots to the open-door policy of the U.S.A over the concessions in the 18th century China. They prevent any
move for national industrialization for they only wish the country to double its production of raw materials necessary
for their industries. They hold back the feudal mode of production because they have direct access to the yields of the
mode of production due to their connections to big landlords. The compradors then establish themselves as
middlemen, and have their interests on the trading of raw materials to other countries. Another effect of globalization
is the creation of multilateral agencies: the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade
Organization, all three has one mission and that is to strangle the economy of its client states like the Philippines for
example by dictating its economic programs.
Another issue is the inequality in the distribution of national wealth in the Philippines. All the wealth are
concentrated in the metropolitan areas like Metro Manila, as a result we have seen the migration of Filipinos from the
mountains to the cities. They left their work in the farmlands and production becomes slow, increasing the prices of
basic food commodities.
The working class of the Philippines is confronted with a lot of social problems but they are not alone in
this struggle. There are other classes which will be led by the workers, the proletariat since they are the revolutionary
class, the favored class in the history. They shall build a united class front. The cooperation shall be comprised by the
peasants, the workers themselves, the petty-bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie.
The peasants – since the Philippines remains to be a semi-feudal society and we are left with a
considerable number of peasants and they are a dependable force from which we can get manpower in steering the
revolution towards victory. They are also part of the front since one of the enemies sought to be defeated by the
revolution is feudalism. Apart from this, they also receive oppression from the landlords.
The petty-bourgeois, they are the small-time businessmen and the professionals. Then next to them re the national-
bourgeoisie who are aiming for national industrialization and whose capital are dwarfed by that of big-time
corporations which have foreign capital into its stocks.
Social Structure
Brought about by the different waves of colonialism in the Philippines, the simple structure of the
society with 3 classes: maharlika, timawa at alipin evolved into a complex bourgeoisie and proletariat with the
peasants, petty-bourgeoisie, and other remnants of the previous mode of productions. Every class has its own
principle and duty to fulfill. The maharlikas never evolved into a new oppressing class since they were replaced by
the Spaniards who rule the islands. All three were dragged into the bottom of the society.

J.K.B. Ecarma 9
 In our investigation we see the role of each of the classes in two aspects: first: in the context of its
relations in the social structure and second is their role in the society in the field of politics and economics.
First, the proletariat along with the peasants in the context of their relations to the social structure, they are
at the bottom if we look at their position in the society. We have already discussed that the workers don’t own the
means of production and instead they sell their labor to earn a living. They are those who yield the products for the
consumption of the people. In the context of their state as a progressive class, we can harness their position at the
bottom so they will strongly demand a change in the condition making them at the top of the society. In their position
it is impossible for them to receive and can be reached by services because wealth enters into the elites first then it is
narrowed down until it has been wrest at all degrees, ending up to the workers as none or few has remained. They
are continually oppressed by those above them. They composed the majority of the population. The proletariat is the
one that supports the society; on the basis of their contribution through their labor they developed raw materials into
manufactured articles. In terms of financial security, they are poor for the basis of their wealth solely lies on their
capacity in labor and salary. They cannot accumulate more money because they don’t have machineries. In the field
of politics they have little representation in the different organs of the government. Aside from their status as a
revolutionary class, they don’t have the power grip within the reactionary state. Money is the standards for keeping
the government as a reactionary entity and for that it is very hard for the workers to be involved in the dirty politics of
the country. The state is dominated by the ruling class – the elite. They may have little representation in the
government but only to different organizations and party-lists putting as a core the cause for the proletariat, but their
number is always dwarfed by the magnitude of the representatives of the bourgeoisie that have already found its nest
in the government.
The bourgeoisie is on the top of the society, before wealth comes in, it has to pass through their
hands resulting to its decline in value. They own the means of production. They hold the capital which is the product
of labor and which is exploiting the workers. The rule of the capitalists had come to pass and so they no longer have
the capacity to become revolutionary class, except during the time when capitalism is still at its progressive stage. Let
us see history, during the time of the French Revolution, when feudalism is still the system of the society and the
aristocrats as the ruling class while the bourgeoisie is still at the bottom of the nobles. They launched the revolution
and ousted the ruling aristocrats and brought to power the bourgeoisie of France.
Due to capitalism the ruling class – bourgeoisie is given the privilege to choose which direction to be taken by the
people, and for sure they have to take whatever is good for their class. In the political aspect, they hold every organ
of the government from judiciary, executive and the legislative. They also have in hand the police force and the
military to function in accordance to its will.
In the local framework, the elites are on the top of the pyramid of classes: the big compradors, big landlords and big
capitalists, next to it is the nationally-based bourgeoisie then the petty-bourgeoisie then the workers and the last are
the peasants.

CHAPTER 4
The Philosophy of History

Philosophy is divided into two camps. Both are in constant debates on the correctness of their slogans’
phraseology as to the primacy of either: spirit or nature. The focal point of this split is the assertion that spirit is above
nature by the idealists and the other way around by the materialists.
Marx is a materialist; therefore we communists should be materialists. Necessary in our study of Marxism
is the study of the development of Marx’s philosophy from its infancy in Hegel to his maturity at Feurbach’s

J.K.B. Ecarma 10
inspiration. But his association with the two German philosophers doesn’t mean that his works are identical to the
works of the two, but he derived his own out from the inspiration and ideas from the two especially to that of the latter.
This is dialectical materialism. Let us break down the two terms as independent terminologies. Why dialectical?
Dialectics (dialego – in Greek) is the method of study, an approach in dissecting phenomena using dialogue between
two persons having different thoughts and their primary task is to convince each other this is the direct opposite of
rhetoric. Why materialism? Materialism as a philosophical view on the interpretation of nature and natural
phenomena. Over-all, dialectical materialism is the world view of any Marxist-Leninist party.
Let us compare the two: idealism and the view of Marx (Marxism):
Idealism – believes that the world is a personification of an absolute idea, a cosmic spirit, and
consciousness. They hold in their non-sense slogans that consciousness really exists while nature is only in our
ideas, making them a figment of our imagination. They claimed that there is no possibility of knowing the world and its
laws, they don’t believe in the accuracy of our knowledge, they believe that the world is full of mysteries which cannot
be understood by science. They completely underestimated human knowledge due to their belief in a supreme being.
We can say that these idealists are blind for they think with their eyes close not looking into what is tangible and what
really exists. They stand on the spirit that lies behind everything. Let us suppose that at the moment we have been
born, and we see nothing (no matter at all) would it be possible fro us to create new ideas without basing it on
matter? No! Because matter should come first, had it not been for the tree then there would have been no idea for a
table.
Marx – believes that the world is material in nature that phenomena compose various forms of matter in
motion. Marx believes that nature exists independently outside our consciousness. Matter stands as primary since it
is where our ideas come from. While consciousness follows second for it is only a by-product of matter.
A component of dialectical materialism and a specific part of Marxist philosophy is Historical Materialism,
which is the study of society and its history. It sees the historical developments when one stage gives rise to the next
as a product of material conditions of the society. What gave way for feudalism is the disintegration of the Roman
Empire. Then from feudalism to capitalism, is the material basis of the formation of cities and founding of industries
especially the inventions of machineries. Therefore we can infer that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if
taken independently, viewing it as not connected to the previous phenomenon. Rather it can be understood when we
consider what preceded such phenomenon, to explain it. We should take things as connected instead of its
independence from the rest. Let us understand that history is continuous and is a line, and that a certain
phenomenon is just part of the line, let us not isolate one from the rest.
Viewing from the fact of the interdependence of phenomena in nature, we say that nature in not stable as
phenomena also changes and give way for the next. We say that nature is a state of continuous movement; it comes
in and dies out. Therefore, in dialectics, a phenomenon is studied also of their movement from its birth to its death,
from its progressive state to its decline. But we should not consider it as a movement in circles, recycling the old for
the new but its movement is onwards, from simple to complex and from the lowest to the highest phase.
Yes we have already said that all phenomena are interconnected, so it is every obvious that the formation
of social systems that come along with a certain phenomena is not from an idea, but of the conditions, the material
conditions. It is not that the people from the antiquities have thought of transferring to a new system – feudalism.
These changes were and will never be instigated by our consciousness. Why so? Because the latter itself owes its
existence in the social being. Let us take Karl Marx:
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being
determines their consciousness.”

J.K.B. Ecarma 11
 What gave rise to new ideas is determined by the well-being of the society. During the time of the slave
societies, slave-owners have not thought of industrialization but are more focused on the continuous exploitation to
the slaves they own. It is the material conditions that slaves can no longer provide the growing needs of their
masters. Another example, slavery then on the basis of the material conditions of slave societies was considered
morally correct and people then bow in reverence to the slave-owners, but now with the material conditions that of
capitalism, we are disgusted to the fact of slavery, and prohibit such practice. What was then normal now turned into
an immoral act of humanity.
In every stage in history lies a material condition necessary for its birth and also for its decline. In the
primitive communal system, one of the material conditions for its progressive stage is the invention of tools necessary
for hunting. Then it gave way for the slave societies, when the previous systems disintegrated due to underlying
factors affecting its demise, when there is a decline in the resources, and competition within the community started
because the supply nature has provided can no longer meet the high demands of the people to feed their families.
Then from the slave societies to feudalism, then from feudalism to capitalism, then the latter to communism. The
material condition for the assumption of communism is the revolution to be waged by the proletarian, and of course
again the underlying factors is the decline of capitalism which nowadays has become clear.
History: a challenge to the Communists
Communism is indeed the climax of history! The point when humanity shall be pulled into one class and
that is the proletarian. Class struggle will be drawn into one global effort and that is to find the perfect way towards a
communist society. In the song: “Internationale” written during the French Revolution, it has clearly underscored the
challenge for the people not to wait for that change rather to demand that change from themselves, culminating in the
unified struggle of the oppressed: the Revolution.
“Arise, workers from oppression, arise slaves of hunger” – The workers around the world are
imprisoned in the wrath of oppression and of greed by the ruling class. They, for hundreds of years were unconscious
of how they were exploited by the capitalists. The reason why they remain conservative and slaves of their masters is
due to the lack of knowledge on how important their roles are in the shaping of the new stage. On the other hand they
were poisoned by the capitalists, the poison of nationalism. They were rallied to wars, brought from the factories and
farmlands to the battlefield protecting the interests of the ruling class. They fought wars that do not benefit them at all
rather contributed to the extreme accumulation of wealth by the rich. They were fooled to use suffrage, the right to
vote, just to pick politicians who belong to the rich and not from the vast majority of the population.
“Justice explodes like a volcano in the last judgment.” – Justice is the battlecry of the revolution. To
destroy the foundations of the present order and grant the masses its basic democratic rights. These rights has been
deprived from them, and abused by their masters.
“Let us destroy the chains of the past, we the oppressed will rise in revolt”– In the words of the
Communist Manifesto: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist Revolution, the proletarians have nothing to
lose but their chains! Workers of all countries unite!” Indeed workers must destroy the handcuffs that put them into
bondage for centuries. By the dawn of the revolution, the workers will revolt and will no loner subject themselves to
the control of the bourgeoisie.
“We are now enslaved but tomorrow is ours.” – It has been clearly stated in the pattern of history that
eventually we will all head towards the victory of the workers over the capitalists through a revolution. The ruling class
may enjoy now, for now belongs to them, but forever belongs to the proletariat.
“We cannot expect for a savior or a god, our salvation depends on our movement.”– Workers
should not only emancipate themselves from the slavery that is seen by the eyes rather this oppression should be

J.K.B. Ecarma 12
extended into the view of mental slavery. They are held by religion, the Church and politics. They should rely on their
own means, and depend within their own ranks.
“Workers take away the wealth of the rich, emancipate your minds, hold the hammer and together
we shall build our future.”– Workers should remove from the possession of the rich; all the means of production
and under the success and powers of the revolution must centralize all these into the hands of the state under the
principle of common ownership of the means of production.

CHAPTER 5
On the Culture Question

The Culture in the different Social Systems

Culture does not exist independently from the social system or from the society. It is the product of the
two. A society that is based on hunting-gathering most likely creates a culture of charity and generosity. In the
primitive times, the people developed this mentality, that everyone should have equal share of all the goods of the
Earth. A society not based on the merits of its people rather in the principles of equality. From this time, religion was
at its dawning period. People worshipped elements of nature, the mountains, the fire, the sun; their gods have not
taken shape of a man like them.
Next stage was the slave societies. People began to have this thought of subjection to authority. The
weakest bows to the strongest. They develop a culture of obedience, in the part of the slaves and authoritarian rule in
the part of the masters. In this time we, the gods of the people have assumed human forms, people began to think
that man himself can become a god. Out from this we can infer that the attitude of man towards his people can also
be derived from the conception of a new god, that they come to realize man can become god too. He can rule over
other men. We can see the adjacent positions of man ruling others and a god.
After this was the antiquity, the Roman Empire. An emperor assumed godly authority. He rules the empire
as if he is a god, and same view is shared by his people towards him. The case of man-god has gone worst, we have
an emperor acting as a god, and a man, Jesus Christ who lived these times claimed to be God himself. People in this
time had the attitude of extreme fanaticism especially the gods they have are now tangible and can be seen by their
naked eyes. They also had this attitude for dominance as they scour the globe for new territories.
When the Roman Empire fell, feudalism grew. At this point an organized religion was now established,
Christianity. And this religion has the control of most of its people. At this time, it is considered to be the darkest
period in the history of the world, as science did not flourish or shall I say was not allowed to flourish by the Church.
The church played a pivotal role in slowing down progress as it is held by the hands of the rich, to become an
instrument to oppress the poor.
As feudalism dissolved, capitalism emerged. This system is based on competition, on the acquisition of
wealth in the hands of the few, on an elitist society. The markets have their important roles as they are the focal point
of capitalistic relations of labour. At markets they sell commodities, the basic needs of the people, but due to the
extreme commercialism, they have come with a price. And this price makes man to work hard for him to achieve food
for example. As soon as he acquires food, it leaves a mentality to his head, that he is the one who earned it therefore
it is just right that he will not share it to others. In other terms, our society has developed a culture of greed! Greed
that has left man to struggle with the little of what he has. The resources have now been owned by individuals, thus
making it inaccessible to the poor. From here emerged the concept of privatization, the technical and morally-correct
term for selfishness. The term that even the Church is guilty of. Out from the present social system, labour is

J.K.B. Ecarma 13
measured by how many have you created or how many hours have you been working. Labor itself has been
converted into a commodity. I do not blame the rich or the poor for the rotten culture that they have, rather I direct my
accusation to the social system. The system left both the rich and the poor to struggle for their own survival. It has
instilled to them the ideas, similar to that of Darwinism which is the survival of the fittest. The men and women of this
era and of the past eras under the capitalist regime have been turned into guinea pigs in the laboratories of history.
The same system that brought men into oppression that has brought the world different social conflicts: two world
wars and countless battles. The system that alienated the workingman from his true nature, and making him not less
than a machine. Indeed a culture of greed. Workers work for the rich, they toil the ground for the profit of the ruling
classes. The latter are just doing nothing but to boss around and hold the upper hand in oppression. Prevalent in
these times, is a disease-like that has stricken most of the laborers: this is commodity fetishism. People worship
commodities, and this is a complete mystification in the social relations of men and women.
In communism, it shall be based on the principles of equality. That very same culture that should aid the
revolution in advancing the interests towards the creation of a perfect Communist society. Every man and woman will
be geared with the ideology: Marxism-Leninism and Maoism: the battlecry of the oppressed.

CHAPTER 6
The Leader - Democracy Relations

All throughout history, the concept of leaders has evolved from a mere extremist means of accumulating
power into a necessity. Wherever there are people, there is a leader that has drawn the population together and kept
it that way. They played a vital role in the preservation of societies, had it not been for their presence, the whole
human civilization could have fallen into anarchy.
The concept of democracy did not emerged from the streets of Greece, as synthesize by ancient
philosophers rather, democracy is innate to human societies. Regardless of how it is limited, it can never be ceased
though suppressed by some leaders; it always exists since time immemorial and forever. Whenever there is a longing
for a leader from the people, then there is democracy. The existence, the very being of a leader solely lies on the
people’s need of leadership. He is a product of “vox populi” or voice of the people materialized in a process called:
election.
As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, I am always confronted with a question, that if Communism intends to create
an egalitarian society, meaning equality reigns over the society, then why do we still have leaders in a Communist
country? Not a question worthy of raising an eyebrow, indeed a very good question! A leader is not the power
himself, nor an embodiment of power, rather a leader is the manager of power. Leaders maximize power which is the
authority to rule, and where does it come from? It comes from the people themselves, generated form their need of
order. There is equilibrium of function between the two entities: the leader and the people led.
Another point, a leader is not a symbol of superiority, the submission of the people in front of a leader is
not due to his position above all other else, rather it is respect, the respect of the people towards the institution and
not the individual himself (leader). Respect insofar is a human function irremovable by any revolution, because
classes may be raised to none but respect can never be stripped away from the people.
In a communist nation, a Communist Party holds the authority to rule. In this system, democracy is not
absent rather in its most perfect form, it is maximized to its fullest. The Party represents the vast majority of the
people; it is the symbol of collective ideas and needs of the whole population.
Those who oppose then raise their voices in a sarcastic tone: why not let the people led, all of them! I
myself if not for the comic character of the line would have been enraged. Even the foolish men on the street , know

J.K.B. Ecarma 14
that this is technically not possible and second, this is no longer leadership, this time they have stripped it of its
validity. This results to anarchy, and would give way for opportunism and allow the entry of counter-revolutionary
elements.
Another, accusation is the suppression of democracy. Democracy in a communist society is very present
and is practiced by everyone. Democratic rights are granted to the masses as soon as revolution is won. The
democracy we are more familiar with is poisoned with the western idea of unperturbed and unbarred accumulation of
wealth. The democracy they introduce to their territories in the east around 19th century is the democracy that would
allow them to amass resources, and be able to transform into more profit. Democracy is only granted to the rich, to
those who are in power or those who have connection to power! This is the reality of our times. Is this the democracy,
communism has vowed to stop? Indeed yes!

Leading the Masses

The masses are in constant battle, in an eternal struggle against its enemies, the external forces. Leadership
is the key to their victory. Without leadership the movement itself will collapse and the struggle will be put to waste.
Pro-mass organizations should be created to aid in the mass work. We should serve the masses through leading
them in building their structure and strengthening the nails that put together all its parts.
Our government is saying it will serve the people. But what is service if there is something in exchange which
is our blood and sweat. We only receive a fraction of that service but in totality it never comes to the basic social
groundwork. It has never infiltrated through the permeable bounds of the smallest social unit. The government is
ruled over by the rich with the poor given less representation. Money and the basic services never come directly to
the poor people – the masses because it is narrowed down as it passes through the rich. The politicians never heed
to the cause of the poor, the never listen to their wishes nor give them a sigh of sympathy. They only go to the world
of the poor if they seek re-election giving promises of help. They wear fake smiles and shake the hands of every
people they meet along the streets.
Authentic leadership should be given, that which is not expecting any reward but the vision of a strengthened
mass. It should come from within. No outsider can effectively lead the people out from their miseries, only those who
come inside, those who belong in the same ranks. If we allow them to lead then they will over-rule the masses. We
should shun fake sympathizers and exterminate any of their elements and of course opportunists. If we will fail then
we will start all over again, putting all our efforts into waste. A leader should emerge as one of the masses not from
any other social class. We do not want to fall into the same fate as our nation. Our nation was created by the masses
– led by Andres Bonifacio and the Katipunan, but in the end who led the nation? Ilustrados, the rich people – like
Emilio Aguinaldo.
Leadership is a way of serving the masses. This should be selflessly practiced doing away our individualist
nature of putting our interests first. A leader should listen to his people. He should put morality at the heart of the
struggle. Some movements fail due to the poverty of leadership spurred by a crisis of principle. Leaders having no
firm conviction. On the other hand to do their share, the people should cooperate. But everything will still be traced to
leadership; we can expect 100% cooperation if there is a clear leadership because giving cooperation is like
investment, people will become hesitant to gamble their support if they see vagueness in direction. When they
cooperate it means they are showing their confidence to the leader. And one thing, the lack of cooperation is not a
problem beforehand but a consequence of poor leadership.

J.K.B. Ecarma 15
J.K.B. Ecarma 16