Duterte's supposed "pro-China" aesthetics masks the fact the he has never changed/repealed the country's current treaties with the US. He's all talk.

His release of Joseph Scott Pemberton, the killer of Jenifer Laude, a trans woman, to be taken cared of by the US Marine Corps is very telling of the US-PH relationship, letting Pemberton get away scot-free.

No person should ever defend Duterte. No remotely leftist person in the country likes Duterte.

deleted by creator

Yeah I don't think I've seen it here.

I think most hexbears recognize that following the "rules based international order" produces some bad/contradictory decisions in China's foreign policy.

Even under Mao, China's foreign policy was problematic, but for different reasons

I've had that happen here to me. Respectfully and we sorted it out iirc, but yeah people really do not like that there are contradictions in Dengism. People deny the NPA being MLM even, thing is there are always contradictions, and if those of us who are anti-revisionist MLs have to make sense of all of Stalin's actions and the contradictions we face, yall can deal with some shit.

also I was trying to find old comments about the CPP and found that in our search function pretty much any mention of Joma or the NPA going back more than a few months is missing entirely, and when google searched they are clearly still there but you get an error. Did someone delete all of them for some reason?

It’s the biggest disappointment of modern China to me. In Mao’s time China actually did actually at least attempt to export revolution and was instrumental in some revolutionary activity throughout the global south. Part of that was being in competition with the Soviet Union for the mantle of “leader of global communism” and now I suppose they have no incentive in that regard, plus they’ve committed for now to building up material conditions within their own country which involves a strict “hey we don’t interfere in the politics of other countries, we just do business with everybody” policy to avoid boat rocking and reprisal from the west… but there has to come a day when they take a more active role in liberation movements of other countries because the west is going to attack them no matter what they do.

the sources are from WSWS which is not considered the most reputable here given the other material they put out there

what other material they put out? i honestly have not heard this

China had an even more severe drug problem before the revolution:

Another country that once had an addiction problem—one that lasted for almost 200 years and involved an incredible 25 per cent of its population—is China.

China was forced into addiction by the Opium Wars. Contrary to popular belief, these wars—from 1839 to 1842 —did not originate because China wanted to export opium. They began when China resisted England's demand to import opium in exchange for Chinese products—mostly tea, silk, and porcelain. China lost these wars, and among other indignities was forced to exchange its goods for opium. As a result it became a highly narcoticized country, a victim of ruthless Western economic and political policy. By 1850 an entire fifth of the revenue of the British Government of India — the source of opium — came from Chinese consumption of this drug.

Unlike the CPP, which had decided to engage in tailism by aiding and staunchly supporting a reactionary capitalist government that made it clear from the beginning about their intentions to just outright violently exterminate drug addicts, most of whom were the urban poor working class (what communist parties are supposed to help represent and save from addiction), Mao’s Communist Party had a vastly different program to tackle the issue:

Equally significant in the Chinese drive to eliminate narcotic addiction were its methods of plugging the source, China is 80 percent rural, and an unknown but significant part of the land had been turned into poppy cultivation. The first major economic and political mass campaign of the Government was land reform, and this aim was coordinated with elimination of poppy growth. Distribution of land from large landholders to landless peasants was accompanied by the need to convert the opium cash crops to badly needed food crops. Today China produces enough opium to meet its medical needs, but no more.

Smuggled opium was still a source of the drug, and China acted to stop this supply with a policy of “carrot and stick.” Leniency was recommended for employees and workers of opium traffickers; but heavy penalties existed for those controlling the traffic, manufacture, or growth of opium.

China's attitude toward the individual reformed addict was one of good willed congratulations, and represents another important reason why the narcotic problem was overcome. The rehabilitation of opium addicts began with their registration. Arrangements by city‐wide antiopium committees for addict rehabilitation included treatment to break the habit at home, in clinics and in hospitals.

At every stage of personal rehabilitation the ideological motivation was stressed. Given China's attitudes, this ideology was strong on political, social, and economic information. But the important thing is that the anti drug campaign recognized that the desire and will of the addict is ultimately the controlling factor of addiction. China's policy was not simply to deprive a person of drugs, but to replace the need for narcotics with a forceful, national commitment. Equally significant, the former addict was fully accepted back into Chinese life without official stigma or prejudice.

Additionally:

Clinics were opened for the treatment of addicts, and indigent addicts were treated free of charge. An estimated one-third of the addicts "kicked" their habits by going "cold turkey." According to a report from Canton in 1952, of 5,723 registered addicts, 4,709 (or 82 percent) had been cured, with an astounding 4,265 of those (90.5 percent) having been cured at home. Chemotherapy was employed in some clinics and hospitals, but it is unclear which drugs were used. Most cures involved a gradual reduction of dosage, and took approximately 12 days to complete.

A single theme ran throughout the Chinese anti-opium campaign. This was that the addicts were victims of an oppressive system, and not criminals or social deviants. The anti-opium campaign was only part of an overall social policy which attempted to rid the country of many forms of oppression. In small meetings and mass rallies the people were told that now they had the opportunity to destroy remnants of the past such as opium addiction. The peasants and workers strongly supported this Mass Line and it was their unified, collective pressure which in the final analysis conquered opium addiction in China. Starting at the level of the chia (approximately ten family groups) they met to discuss the problem of addiction as it applied to their locale. Women's Federation and Youth League groups organized committees to aid the government, and wives and mothers were mobilized to put pressure on their addicted husbands and sons.

This mass support, so essential to the success of the antiopium campaign, was generated by the overall social reform which eliminated the cycle of poverty and frustration throughout China. Every citizen was guaranteed -- for the first time -- the right to enough food to live on, the right to a decent place in which to live, the right to a job, and the right to a basic equality of opportunity. These guarantees in turn supplied the people with a sense of purpose and faith in the future. Not only were the current addicts treated, but this sense of national purpose worked to insure that a new generation of addicts would not arrive to replace them. Today, the problem of addiction is so remote as to be an historical curiosity.

Meanwhile, the CPP’s leadership tried to falsely portray the right-wing Duterte as a progressive Hugo Chávez-like leader to the masses while also whitewashing Duterte's record in the party’s support of him:

One example: there is an allusion to Sison suggesting Philippine president Duterte could be a Chávez-like figure. But Sison was not just simply wrong in his assessment of what Duterte’s presidency would be like — he helped to bring it about. During the campaigning period, Sison spoke highly of Duterte, claimed a Duterte presidency would be good for “national unity” and, unique in Philippine history, had (via Skype) a publicized sympathetic talk with the presidential candidate. During the same period, the NPA released several POW’s to Duterte, further bolstering his claim he would be able to reach a peace agreement with them. All this helped create sympathy for Duterte among the National-Democratic mass base.

After Duterte became president, Sison called for a “critical honeymoon period” between Duterte and the National-Democrats. Sison suggested that Duterte would soon sign an agreement with the NDF and implement far-reaching social reforms. The CPP spoke of an “alliance” being forged between it and the president. Leading figures from the Nation-Democratic movement entered the cabinet, despite the rapidly escalating violence of the “war on drugs.”

This violence did not come as a surprise. From the late eighties on, Duterte was the mayor of Davao City. Long before he became president, he organized a death squad that murdered hundreds, mostly petty criminals, drug addicts, and street children. Despite this, Duterte and National-Democratic leaders cultivated cordial links.

The total death count of Duterte’s “war on drugs” is in the thousands and is still increasing. Sison carries part of the responsibility for this.

The CPP for decades has also engaged in Shining Path-like tactics, including the assassination of rival leftists, while the right continues to consolidate power: https://jacobin.com/2018/09/community-party-philippines-sison-ndf-murder

The Stalinist Communist Party of the Philippines

oh that is cool name let me just check name on google…

oh, you mean “stalinist” as in insult? okay stupid nerd

The CPP on foreign policy:

Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) enthusiastically endorsed the right-wing Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny and the protests against the Putin government triggered by Navalny’s return to Russia and arrest.

Released by the CPP’s chief information officer Marco Valbuena, the statement declared: “All democracy-loving people must support and emulate the mass protest actions in Russia against the Putin fascist regime, particularly against the plans of the dictator to extend his power by seeking a third term.”

The statement, while ferocious in its denunciations of Putin and his “tyrannical, corrupt and criminal regime,” is completely uncritical of “critic and opposition leader” Navalny, who is backed by US imperialism and its allies. Indeed, one of the first actions of the Biden administration has been to demand Navalny’s release.

Whatever the criminality of the Putin regime, there is nothing remotely progressive about Navalny. In the final analysis, he articulates the same class interests—those of the Russian bourgeoisie. >His tirades against “corruption” and “crooks and thieves” at the top are simply attempts to mask his ruthless, pro-market agenda of imposing economic austerity, cutting taxes and red tape for corporations, and privatising semi-state-owned enterprises.

Navalny’s contempt for democratic rights and the working class is summed up in his links to extreme-right forces within Russia, where he has addressed far-right marches on numerous occasions. He used to be a member of the organisational council of the Russian March, an annual event organised by the country’s fascist and far-right forces.

The fact that none of this is mentioned in the CPP statement is no accident. It supports Navalny precisely because it is lining up with sections of the ruling class most closely aligned with US imperialism, represented by Vice-President Leni Robredo and her Liberal Party.

The CPP’s denunciations of Duterte are utterly cynical. The Stalinists backed his election in 2016 and sought to form a political alliance with his administration, even supporting his murderous “war on drugs” directed against the working class. It was Duterte, under pressure from the military, not the CPP, that broke relations and then turned the armed forces against the CPP’s rural guerrillas.

In an opportunist about-face, the CPP is now aligning with the bourgeois political opposition to Duterte, headed by Robredo and the Liberal Party. The CPP has repeatedly appealed to the disgruntled pro-US elements of the military to withdraw support from Duterte and install Robredo.

Like Navalny in Russia, the Liberal Party in the Philippines has only tactical differences with the current regime, primarily over foreign policy. It has repeatedly criticised Duterte for his ties with Beijing and branded him as a puppet of China.

Any new Liberal Party regime would be just as ruthless as Duterte in trampling on democratic rights and the working class. The Philippine bourgeoisie as a whole confronts a deep economic and social crisis as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The country has reported more than 500,000 cases and 10,000 coronavirus deaths—the second-highest toll in South East Asia after Indonesia.

Obviously the CPP, even with its leadership's history of opportunism and blunders, should still be supported (support should be very critical though) over the right-wing Duterte, Marcos Jr., or Leni.