💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › simoun-magsalin-mobilisations-of-philippines-anarchism.… captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:05:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Mobilisations of Philippine Anarchisms
Author: Simoun Magsalin
Date: September 2021
Language: en
Topics: Philippines, history, social movements
Source: https://www.thecommoner.org.uk/mobilisations-of-philippines-anarchism/

Simoun Magsalin

Mobilisations of Philippine Anarchisms

Introduction

The current Philippine anarchist milieu is a relatively recent

phenomenon dating from the 1990s, but there have been precedents dating

from the precolonial period before the arrival of the Spanish, the

American colonial period, and the First Quarter Storm (the militant

period before the Marcos Dictatorship). Despite the influences anarchism

has had on the radical history of the Philippines, it remains an

under-studied subject, especially in social movement studies. My

objective with this article is twofold: (1) to locate the niche that

Philippine anarchism occupies in the radical history of the country, and

(2) to investigate the factors that have contributed to the mobilisation

of Philippine anarchism and its precedents. Through this, I hope to

provide a panoramic perspective on the place Philippine anarchism

occupies in the radical history of the archipelago.

My methodology involves surveying currently existing literature about

Philippine anarchism—which is at times written by Filipino anarchists

themselves—to sketch its emergence in the country. Of course, this opens

up the study to the issue of bias, in that published literature is

privileged over oral or more informal traditions. This is an

acknowledged bias and limitation to this review. What is reviewed here

is limited to the literature published by and about the Philippine

anarchist milieu. I recognize that what is written and published may not

necessarily be representative of the totality of what Philippine

anarchism represents—if such a totality can even be represented at all.

Despite these limitations, I think it is important to review what is

currently available. While the literature bias prevents us from making

generalisations on the entirety of Philippine anarchism or something

representative of it, it may still inform us on the tendencies of

Philippine anarchism that manifest into published literature. In terms

of the history of the milieu, published literature proves to be quite

fragmented. I first sketch what we do know before I suggest avenues of

investigation for what we do not yet know. I see this study as

information gathered for a review of literature and history that can be

a starting point for a deeper and more comprehensive survey that

includes oral and practical traditions.

With these methodological limitations covered, keep in mind that while I

may claim that Philippine anarchism has certain features, these may not

be representative of the beliefs and politics of every anarchist in the

milieu.

So, what is Philippine anarchism? I adopt the conceptual framework of

Franks, Jun, and Williams (2018) to identify what is anarchism or a

precedent of it in the Philippines. Anarchism itself is a commonly used

set of ideas, practices, and actions shared between those who call

themselves anarchists.[1] We anarchists share an opposition to

hierarchy, a commitment to freedom, prefiguration, and agency, use

direct action, and share a revolutionary outlook.[2] Philippine

anarchism is an anarchism adapted to the Philippine context and locally

articulated by anarchists in that context. Philippine anarchism adopts

the core concepts of international anarchism—the opposition to

hierarchy, commitment to freedom, prefiguration, and all that—and adopts

adjacent concepts relevant for the Philippine context. Tendencies in

Philippine anarchism tend to adopt concepts such as decolonisation,

indigenisation, and ecology.

In a literature study of anarchist histories across Bolivia, the United

Kingdom, Czechia (the former Czechoslovakia), Greece, Japan and

Venezuela,[3] identify factors that contribute to the mobilisation of

anarchist movements across different countries. They identify political,

economic, and cultural factors that lead to mobilisation, and find that

certain international and domestic phenomena can either mobilise or

demobilize anarchist movements.[4] In turn, anarchist mobilisations are

encouraged by international interaction and dissemination of anarchist

ideas, the popularisation of punk, a militant labour movement, and

disillusionment with the old Left.[5] Factors that demobilize anarchists

include Bolshevism and state repression.[6] However, some factors of

mobilisation in certain countries can also serve to demobilize in other

countries, such as how state repression was a mobilising factor in

Czechia and Greece but a demobilizing factor in Japan.[7] With this in

mind, we have to take into consideration that even if a certain factor

mobilised or demobilized anarchists in one context, this may not be

necessarily applicable in the Philippine context.

So like other anarchisms in the global anarchist movement, we see

similar patterns of mobilisation in Philippine anarchism. As we shall

see, the mobilisation and popularisation of Bolshevism and later

Marxism-Leninism would demobilise anarchist or anarchist-inflected

tendencies in the Philippines, while factors like punk culture and the

delegitimisation of Marxism-Leninism in the wake of the collapse of the

USSR and her satellites helped encourage anarchism in the Philippines,

just as it did elsewhere.

This study next discusses political opportunity structures, which are

the factors that facilitate or inhibit mobilisation. Thereafter, we deal

with the prehistories of Philippine anarchism. By understanding how

Philippine anarchism situates itself in the radical history of the

archipelago, we may better understand the niche that anarchism fulfils

in the Philippines. From there, we shall look into what is currently

known about the history of Philippine anarchism in its emergence in the

late 20^(th) century, before tackling the factors of mobilisation in the

contemporary anarchist milieu.

Political Opportunities for Anarchists

Political opportunities are structures that constrain or encourage

mobilisation and form the opportunities and threats where contention

takes place.[8] McAdam (1996)[9] and Tilly and Tarrow (2015) outline

various factors that influence political opportunity in the

structures/environments that most social movements operate under:

whether the institutionalised political system is open or closed to

new actors, otherwise known as access to political participation;

whether the regime has a ‘multiplicity of independent centres of power

within it’;

whether the political alignments among elites are in flux, stable, or

unstable;

whether actors can find influential allies and supporters among the

elite; the capacity and propensity for state repression or facilitation

of claim-making by actors; and

whether there are any definitive changes in any of the previous

factors.

While anarchist social movements generally benefit from some of these

political opportunities such as civil liberties which increase access to

political participatio,[10] these political opportunity structures were

specifically designed for social movements that are reformist and

state-oriented.[11] For example, anarchists are not likely to appeal to

the support of elites for their causes,[12] considering that access to

elites has a tendency to produce reformism rather than radicalism.[13]

In order to analyse the mobilisation and demobilisation of anarchist

social movements,[14] modify political opportunity theories to better

fit the particularities unique to anarchist milieus. In their analysis

of historical accounts of anarchist movements written by anarchists

themselves,[15] find the following factors that influence the

mobilisation and demobilisation of anarchist movements:

international interaction between anarchists and activists of

different countries which allows anarchist ideologies to disseminate;

the dissemination and growth of punk which functions as a safe space

for the propagation of anti-authoritarian and anarchist ethos and

culture;

the presence of anti-capitalism based on experiences of relative

deprivation and poverty;

the presence of radicalised labour unions whose militancy dovetails

with anarchist militants and ideologies;

whether a country is at war where anarchists are able to join anti-war

mobilisations to mobilise in turn;

whether anarchists make use of propaganda-of-the-deed—a tactic of

using terrorism and assassinations to pursue political ends—which

triggers fierce repression on anarchist militants and their

organisations thus demobilising them;

the mobilisation of Bolshevism, which has the potential to demobilise

anarchists;

the presence of fierce state repression which in some cases such as in

Czechia and Greece can mobilise anarchism, but can also demobilise

anarchists, as was the case in Japan;

the presence of liberal democracy where public space is open for

radical ideologies to mobilise;

disappointment and disillusionment with the old left, as exemplified

by international backlash to the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian

revolution of 1956.[16]

These political opportunities inherit McAdam, Tilly and Tarrow’s focus

on political participation, alignments that may aid anarchist

mobilisation.

In terms of mobilisation, I identify international interaction and the

presence of radical labour unions as factors that led to the

mobilisation of anarchist principles in the American colonial period

with the interactions with anarchists by Isabelo de los Reyes in exile

and later his labour militancy in his return. For the anarchy of the

First Quarter Storm in 1970, there is not enough information on the

mobilisation of the anarchist SDKM, but its demobilisation is known. Of

these identified factors of demobilisation, I identify the mobilisation

of Bolshevism as a demobilising factor for anarchists in the

Philippines. Indeed, this was the fate of the anarchisms of the American

colonial period and of the First Quarter Storm.

After my own review of the Philippine anarchist literature available,

there are four factors that I identify as mobilising factors for

contemporary Philippine anarchism. The first factor is the crisis of

authoritarianism in the socialist and communist milieus in the

post-Marcos period (after 1986). This crisis of authoritarianism and its

manifestations in events like the murderous purge by the Communist Party

resulted in radicals reassessing authoritarian paradigms and looking for

new ideological frames. The second factor is the collapse of the Soviet

Union, which delegitimised Marxism-Leninism and state socialism. If the

victory of Marxism-Leninism leads to the defeat of anarchism, then the

reverse potentially holds true.[17] The third factor is the

dissemination of punk, or punkista as it is known in the Philippines.

Punk and anarchism have historically developed together,[18] and we see

this pattern again in the Philippines. The fourth factor is the

international mobilisation of the anti-Neoliberal “alter-globalization”

movement, with anarchists leading the charge. As we shall see,

successful mobilisations elsewhere factor into mobilisations in the

Philippines. In turn, this factor of international mobilisation is

related to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which allowed new

ideological frames to take root. Additionally, international interaction

among anarchists and anarchist mobilisations elsewhere has been

previously noted to aid in anarchist mobilisations on a local level.[19]

In the following sections, I situate the niche in which Philippine

anarchism finds itself, together with the history of the precedents of

the contemporary milieu.

Prehistories of Philippine Anarchism

While contemporary Philippine anarchism is a relatively recent

phenomenon, anarchists in the Philippines see themselves as descended

from and related to Indigenous and anti-authoritarian struggles in the

archipelago (See [20]^(,)[21]). While not a Filipino anarchist, the

Black anarchist Roger White (2005) suggests that we must understand

post-colonial anarchisms ‘in relation to the centuries-old struggle

against arbitrary power’ and to view these post-colonial anarchisms ‘as

the newest member of a global family that includes numerous historical

and present day communal societies and struggles against authority.’[22]

This is not unprecedented; Mbah and Igariwey (1997) for example, situate

African anarchism in ‘anarchistic precedents in Africa’ and anarchic and

communalist elements in traditional African society.[23] Black anarchism

as an international tradition also roots itself in historical Maroon and

slave uprisings (See Saint Andrew 2021,[24]). Similarly, the Indigenous

Anarchist Federation (n.d.) roots their Indigenous anarchism in the

practices by Indigenous peoples in the Americas before European

colonisation and also notes that anarchism in Latin America has been

shaped by Indigenous struggles. In the same vein, some Filipino

anarchists like Bas Umali see anarchism as deeply rooted in the

stateless Indigenous communities and stateless political arrangements

prior to colonisation:

‘In my view, since time immemorial, anarchism has been present in the

archipelago; primitive communities from coastal to upland areas

flourished and utilized autonomous and decentralized political patterns

that facilitated the proliferation of highly diverse cultures and

lifestyles.’[25]

However, stretching the concept of anarchism to retroactively encompass

the entirety of stateless history and society is not without problems.

While the concept of anarchy, anarchist principles and concepts, and

anarchic ways of doing things have been well prefigured since ancient

times,[26] anarchism as a set of cohered political and ideological tools

associated with anarchists emerged in the 19^(th) century. There is

value for post-colonial and Indigenous anarchists to root their struggle

and historical consciousness in autonomous and anti-authoritarian

histories, but I think it is a disservice to historical actors to

ascribe them an ism they simply did not subscribe to. As such, for the

purposes of this essay, I term these anti-authoritarian and anarchistic

precursors and episodes that Philippine anarchism situates as part of

its history as “prehistories” of Philippine anarchism, while I term past

anarchisms that did not survive to influence the contemporary anarchist

milieu in the Philippines “precedents” to Philippine anarchism.

As exemplified by the likes of Bas Umali, Philippine anarchism does

situate itself in precolonial and Indigenous histories in the

archipelago. Barclay even includes the Ifugao Indigenous community in

his book People without Government, itself an ‘anthropology of

anarchy.’[27] Indeed, the carving of the mountains in the Banaue Rice

Terraces without the use of governments or states by the Ifugao does

improve the case that states are unnecessary for highly complex

organisation. However, I am equally critical of anarchist equivalents of

a “noble savage” trope, as I am of a search for a “pure” indigeneity

unsullied by the State that decolonisation can return to. David Graeber

for example, points out that we cannot equate ‘indigenous’ with

‘egalitarian: ‘There were hunter-gatherer societies with nobles and

slaves, there are agrarian societies that are fiercely egalitarian.’[28]

With this in mind, I think it is still viable to situate a Philippine

anarchism in, as White says, a family of communal societies and

struggles against authority.[29] Like the African anarchism of Mbah and

Igariwey, Philippine anarchism and their practitioners in the

archipelago situate themselves in the communal and anarchic traditions

and practices already existing in its context.[30]

Included as well in the Philippine family of struggles against authority

are insurrectionary episodes where insurgents practiced direct action.

This family includes the indokumentado or undocumented natives that

resisted state legibility and Spanish colonial authority, instances of

tribes relocating to escape state authority, and open rebellions like

the Dagohoy Rebellion and Bonifacio’s insurrection. Lapu-Lapu imagery

and the celebration of Lapu-Lapu’s victory over Magellan also factors

heavily in the imagination of some tendencies in Philippine

anarchism,[31] suggesting a focus on indigeneity. In looking for the

predecessors of Philippine anarchism, Umali and Barbin also include the

Cavite Mutiny as a direct action movement.[32]^(,)[33] Ironically

enough, the Spanish General Rafael de Izquierdo noted in 1872 of the

Cavite Mutiny that ‘the [First] Internationale has spread its black

wings to cast its nefarious shadow over the most remote lands,’[34] but

when de Izquierdo said that, there was not yet an anarchist or socialist

presence in the county.

Another episode in the prehistories of Philippine anarchism is in the

Philippine national hero Jose Rizal who was mentored by Francesc Pi y

Margall, a Spanish socialist-republican and a Proudhonian.[35] While

Rizal himself never proclaimed himself as an anarchist like his mentor

Pi y Margall, the mutualism of Proudhon was still evident in the

revolutionary nationalist organization Rizal founded, La Liga Filipina

(the Philippine League). La Liga Filipina was explicitly constructed as

a mutualist association in its statutes where members have duties to

assist one another and provide interest-free mutual lending.[36]

However, despite its Proudhonian and mutualist influences, La Liga

Filipina was not an anarchist organisation as it was also a highly

secretive ‘conspiratorial’ organizational and had more in common with

Leninist vanguards than with anarchist political organisations.[37]

Elsewhere, Rizal was inspired by the episodes of anarchists practicing

propaganda-of-the-deed while living in Europe and would integrate

propagandist-of-the-deed and insurrectionary elements in the character,

Simon, and the lamp bomb plot in his second novel El Filibusterismo.[38]

These prehistories of struggle and autonomy from the indokumentados to

the Cavite Mutiny suggest that while anarchism is a useful ideological

lens used to frame struggles against authority, struggles against

authority have always existed in the archipelago. These prehistories

factor into how the current milieu sees itself, suggesting its niche in

Philippine society.

The Anarchism that almost was

If there were anarchistic tendencies in the country that would become

the Philippines before colonialism, where does anarchism as a body of

ideological tools and practices then intersect with Philippine history?

There are indeed episodes where anarchist ideas and practices do

intersect with Philippine history but which do not have historical

continuity with the contemporary anarchist milieu in the Philippines,

simply remaining as precedents. The first precedent of what I would call

the ‘anarchism that almost was’ centred around the return of Isabelo de

los Reyes, who brought anarchist and Marxist books to the Philippines to

seed the first, anarchist-learning, socialist milieu in the

country.[39]^(,)[40] I term this milieu as ‘anarchist-leaning’ because

the milieu did not identify as anarchist but was still influenced and

oriented towards anarchist principles. The second precedent is the

(supposed) anarchist wing in the Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK;

Federation of Democratic Youth) as claimed by the historian Joseph

Scalice, who believes anarchists were among the most militant in the SDK

and participated in insurrectionary episodes such as the Diliman Commune

of 1971.[41] Again, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no

historical link between the currently existing anarchist milieu in the

Philippines and the two precedents of Philippine anarchism outlined

here.

In ‘the anarchism that almost was,’ the Ilustrado and folklorist Isabelo

de los Reyes was deported to Spain and imprisoned in the infamous

Montjuich Castle under charges of insurrection and

separatism,[42]^(,)[43] It was in the dungeons of Montjuich that de los

Reyes encountered the anarchist Ramón Sempau who, along with other

anarchists, then tutored him on anarchist and socialist theory and

smuggled radical literature for de los Reyes to read.[44]^(,)[45] After

his release, de los Reyes was an active figure in the Spanish anarchist

milieu as a Filipino anti-imperialist propagandist and even acquainted

himself with the anarchist pedagogue Francisco Ferrer.[46] It is

important to note however, that while he fraternized with anarchists,

there is no indication that de los Reyes identified as one.

At the end of his exile and his return to the Philippines, Isabelo de

los Reyes brought with him a library containing books by Proudhon, Marx,

Kropotkin, and Malatesta, which became the first known Marxist and

anarchist books sent to the Philippines.[47] In the Philippines, de los

Reyes attempted to start various nationalist and socialist political

projects, the most fruitful being the Union Obrera Democratica (UOD;

Union of Democratic Workers), the very first labour federation in the

country, and the first labour union founded on explicitly socialist

principles.[48]^(,)[49] The UOD and the early Philippine socialist

milieu was grouped around radical printers who had the means to

translate the Marxist and anarchist books brought by de los Reyes into

Tagalog, such as Errico Malatesta’s bestselling pamphlet, Between

Peasants, which was translated as Dalawang Magbubukid.[50]^(,)[51]

Anti-authoritarian ideas permeated into the consciousness of the

Filipino working class with novelist and former UOD leader Lope K.

Santos writing both an anarchist character and anarchist theory into his

novel Banaag at Sikat, later considered a “bible” of the working class

Filipino.[52] Anarchist ideas also permeated the Filipino peasantry

through the socialist and anarchist literature smuggled by Isabelo de

los Reyes and Dominador Gomez, with peasant unions such as the Aguman

ding Maldang Talapagobra (AMT; League of Poor Workers) being inspired by

anarchism.[53]

On this account, we see how international interactions between

anarchists and budding radicals like Isabelo de los Reyes factored into

the mobilisation of anarchist principles in the Philippines. Later on in

de los Reyes’ return to the Philippines, there already existed militant

laborers who helped further mobilise anarchist-leaning principles

through printing and the setting up of the UOD. These two factors,

international interaction and radicalised labour unions were political

opportunities that mobilised anarchist principles in the country.

However, while anarchism was present in the early Philippine socialist

milieu in the form of ideas and literature, there were no Filipino

anarchists. Lope K. Santos, Isabelo de los Reyes, and Pedro Abad Santos

all never explicitly aligned with anarchism nor called themselves such.

The Filipino anarchist character Felipe in Banaag at Sikat is

ahistorical, in that the author Santos wrote an entirely fictional

character not based on any Filipino anarchist. This is because—as far as

I can ascertain—there were no self-identifying Filipino anarchists

during the American and Commonwealth periods who left behind literature

and historical records of their existence. The closest we have to a

Philippine anarchism that almost was are the books Banaag at Sikat and

Dalawang Magbubukid, and organisations influenced by anarchist

principles such as the UOD, AMT, and the Socialist Party of Pedro Abad

Santos, which emerged from the same milieu as UOD and AMT. The books

Banaag at Sikat and Dalawang Magbubukid by themselves are not proof of

the existence of an anarchist milieu, especially with the lack of

self-identified anarchists. Perhaps a review of the literature produced

by the AMT, the radical printers, and the early Socialist Party may

reveal suggestions of the presence of radicals who explicitly did call

themselves anarchist or aligned explicitly with anarchism.

On that note, there is also some literature suggesting the existence of

a Chinese anarchist cell in Manila during the American colonial period.

This group, originating in the 1919 May Fourth Movement in China,

published anarchist books and newsletters in

Chinese.[54]^(,)[55]^(,)[56] These Chinese anarchists in the Philippines

supposedly even sent a representative to the League of Eastern

Anarchists.[57] What we do know from Yong is that a network of Chinese

anarchists and socialists did exist across East and Southeast Asia, and

in Malaysia this radicalism factored into later Malayan communism.[58]

But even if such a Chinese anarchist cell existed, we do not know if

this anarchist cell interacted with the early socialist milieu, or if

the ideas of this anarchist cell factored into the ideologies of the

early Philippine socialists. We do not even know what happened to these

Chinese anarchists in Manila, whether they were absorbed into a diaspora

bureau of the Chinese Communist Party, returned to China during the

reinvigorated Chinese Revolution, or simply faded into obscurity. More

historical research has to be done to understand the extent of the

permeation of anarchist ideology in the Chinese-Filipino and Philippine

socialist milieus during the American Colonial period and if there was

international interaction between the Chinese and Filipino milieus.

What we do know is that the anarchism ‘that almost was’ of the American

colonial period and Commonwealth was subsumed into the Philippine

communist movement, from the Socialist Party to its merger into the old

Communist Party (PKP-1930), the Huk guerrilla resistance to Japanese

fascism, and later against the newly independent Philippine

government.[59]^(,)[60] This pattern of anarchist demobilisation in

reverse proportion to Bolshevik mobilisation after the success of the

1917 Russian Revolution was a phenomena across Southeast Asia and all

over the world.[61]^(,)[62] Indeed, the ‘victory of Bolshevism led to

anarchist decline.’[63] How many anarchist ideas survived into the

communist period of the old PKP-1930 still remains to be learned.

The Anarchy of the First Quarter Storm

The next we hear of anarchism in the Philippines is the First Quarter

Storm in 1970, the period of militancy leading up to the dark days of

the Marcos Dictatorship. The historian of Philippine communism Joseph

Scalice notes that, in the fringe of the initially anti-authoritarian

Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK; Federation of Democratic Youth)

there existed ‘openly anarchistic groups,’ such as the Mendiola chapter

of the SDK (SDKM) led by Jerusalino “Jerry” Araos.[64] The SDKM waved

the black flag with the words ‘Inang Bayan o Kamatayan’ (Motherland or

Death) on its black field, the design being based on a Cuban

revolutionary flag.[65]^(,)[66] Furthermore, Scalice calls the SDKM as

an ‘avowedly anarchist’ faction within SDK.[67] The SDKM was

insurrectionalist in that they carried with them explosives (called

pillboxes) and a certain tendency for violence that earned them a

reputation for having utak pulbura (gunpowder brains). They even set up

underground assembly lines for explosives in urban poor areas they had

an influence in.[68]^(,)[69] The SDKM were highly visible actors in the

First Quarter Storm, and they infamously rammed a commandeered fire

truck onto the Mendiola gate and claimed to have had members in almost

every barricade [70]^(,)[71] including the Diliman Commune.[72]

The student insurrection of 1971, called the Diliman Commune, also

factors as a precedent of Philippine anarchism and as a part of the

country’s libertarian history. Nobleza and Pairez (2011) wrote the

primary study of the Diliman Commune through an anarchist lens. They

found that, despite being ideologically influenced by National Democracy

(the political line of the Communist Party), the Diliman Commune

contained anarchistic elements. For example, they argue that the Diliman

Commune was a spontaneous insurrection that was not directed by a

vanguard party, and that students and faculty intuitively used

anarchistic principles such as direct action and popular general

assemblies.[73] It is important to note, however, that the

historiography of the Diliman Commune as a spontaneous episode is

disputed by Scalice (2018), who argues that Stalinist cadres had been

looking for a pretence to stage street battles to further the programs

of their party, and thus agitated for the use of insurrectionary

barricades across the student milieu.[74] While not anarchist itself and

while the historiography of spontaneity is in doubt, the Diliman Commune

still did have features of direct action and open assemblies that

anarchists do champion. Thus, it is for these reasons that there are

tendencies in Philippine anarchism that point to it for inspiration,

historiographical controversies and all.

The historical question of whether the SDKM was specifically and

explicitly anarchist is also in doubt. Waving black flags and carrying

an insurrectionary mindset is not enough to call a group anarchist.

After all, Daesh (the so-called “Islamic State”) and the Daesh-aligned

Maute group also flew black flags and were insurrectionary, albeit for

entirely different reasons and motivations. The deciding factor to

determine if the SDKM really was anarchist would be to consult the

literature they produced and the oral histories by alumni. Should a

review of the SDKM’s literature reveal a program that is simultaneously

anti-statist and anti-capitalist, and should the literature found be

comparable to the conceptual approach to anarchism in Franks, Jun, and

Williams (2018), then that would lend credibility to the hypothesis that

the SDKM was specifically anarchist. As it turns out, Jerry Araos (2008)

did in fact write about the SDKM in a collection of essays by SDK

alumni, but his brief entry said nothing about anarchism. Araos even

mentions that the ‘SDKM was a rekindling of our KM-led [Kabataan

Makabayan; Nationalist Youth] nationalist spirit and anti-imperialist

sentiments.’[75] The Kabataan Makabayan, of course, is aligned with the

Communist Party as its youth wing, not exactly anarchist material.

Nationalism and anarchism have intersected in the past, such as in the

case of Korean and Black anarchisms[76]^(,)[77] so it may not be outside

the realm of possibility that the SDKM could be simultaneously anarchist

and nationalist. However, the fact that ‘nationalist’ is name-dropped in

Araos’ account but ‘anarchist’ is not tends to lend more credibility to

the hypothesis that the SDKM was not anarchist. While there are some

recollections of an insurrectionary attitude, there was nothing in

Araos’ account about opposition to the paradigms of states, hierarchies,

or cadres—the usual tropes that exemplify the presence of anarchist

ideology. Again, an insurrectionary framework and black flags are

insufficient to make a definitive judgment. The closest we have as proof

is the anti-authoritarian outlook and even anarchistic streak of the SDK

and SDKM that differentiated it from the Kabataan Makabayan,[78] and of

course, the infamous black flag of the SDKM—since black flags have been

a staple of anarchist heraldry since the Russian and Ukrainian

Revolutions.

We have to also keep in mind that the question of whether the SDKM and

Araos were anarchist is not the primary concern of the dissertation of

Scalice (2017). These concerns were only mentioned in passing, and a

more comprehensive study of the SDKM has yet to be written. We cannot

ask Araos outright what the politics of the SDKM was because Araos has

since died. Other SDKM alumni may still be alive, such as Bani “Bunny”

Lansang, who Araos mentioned as the “ideological guru” of the SDKM.[79]

The ultimate proof will be written literature such as pamphlets and

fliers that explain the program and ideology of the SDKM, particularly

their orientations toward authority, the State, or hierarchy. A future

study of the SDKM must take to task both surviving oral histories and

literature to determine the group’s ideological outlook.

If the SDKM was actually anarchist, it is odd that Nobleza and Pairez

(2011) do not mention the SDKM in their account of the Diliman Commune.

The oral history of Philippine anarchism narrated by Cuevas-Hewitt

(2016) does not mention the SDKM either.[80] It seems quite likely these

omissions of the SDKM were simply because they were not aware of the

SDKM. After all, Scalice only made his claims about the SKDM in his

doctoral dissertation completed in 2017, more than a decade after the

earliest version of the study of Nobleza and Pairez (2011) was

circulated in 2006 (initially entitled ‘Anarki in UP’), and a year after

the dissertation of Cuevas-Hewitt (2016) was completed. That Nobleza and

Pairez (2011) or Cuevas-Hewitt (2016) do not mention the SDKM is

suggestive of the fact that there is no historical continuity between

the anarchism of the SDKM and contemporary Philippine anarchism

(assuming the SDKM was anarchist). Like the ‘anarchism that almost was’

before it, the anarchism of the First Quarter Storm was demobilised and

absorbed into communist vanguards, now in the form of the new milieu of

Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought (later Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). The

SDK and SDKM were later absorbed into the communist milieu[81] and Araos

would later join the New People’s Army (NPA, the armed wing of the

Communist Party of the Philippines) before retiring as an artisan and an

artist.[82]^(,)[83] This mirrors the trajectory of the ‘anarchism that

almost was’ of the American and Commonwealth periods. In these two

fragmentary histories of anarchism in the Philippines, almost nothing

While contemporary anarchists in the Philippines may point to these

fragmentary histories as inspirations, there is no discernable

continuity between these fragmentary histories and the contemporary

anarchist milieu in the country. In the years after the fall of the

Marcos Dictatorship, anarchism would reemerge once more, partly

reinvented by concrete experiences of authoritarianism and partly

invigorated by anarchists and punks.

The Philippine Left in Crisis

If the anarchisms of the earlier period were totally demobilized, what

then are the roots of the contemporary anarchist milieu in the

Philippines today? I observe four factors involved in the mobilisation

and emergence of the contemporary anarchist milieu in the Philippines.

These are:

the disillusionment with the authoritarianism of the left;

the collapse of the Soviet Union and of its satellites;

the dissemination of punk; and

the international mobilisation of anarchism as part of the

anti-neoliberal “alter-globalization” movement.

This section deals with the first two factors. The disillusionment with

authoritarianism among the left led to introspection by activists and

radicals, in turn encouraging experimentation with different new ideas.

The collapse of state socialism in the Soviet Union also factored into

the crisis of the Philippine Left, leading to the questioning of old

ideas about state socialism.

There were two major events in the crisis of authoritarianism within the

socialist and communist milieus in the post-Marcos period of 1987

onwards: the bloody purge within the Communist Party of the Philippines

(CPP), which saw the torture and murder of hundreds of communist cadres

and guerrillas; and the Reaffirmist–Rejectionist Schism (or the RA–RJ

split), which split the communist and progressive movement. Within the

Communist Party and those that follow its political line, this

fracturing is known as the Second Great Rectification.

On the purge, Walden Bello[84] noted that it ‘contributed significantly

to setting back the movement,’ such that political work was suspended

and many lives were lost due to murder and other militants to

disillusionment, with devastating results: ‘the morale of hundreds if

not thousands of people in the movement [...] directly or indirectly

contributed to their leaving or lying low.’[85] In reflecting on the

experience of the purge as a victim, Robert Garcia[86] noted the ‘skewed

power relations’ and hypocrisy that prevailed in the party:

‘The revolution thrives in its critique of iniquity and the hierarchical

distribution of wealth, power, and decision-making in society. But the

movement itself is patently hierarchical. The whole Party structure is

vertically organized and all major decisions are done at the top. What

makes this worse is the air of infallibility and finality that accompany

such decisions.[87]

Garcia also noted the authoritarian tendencies in the political culture

of the Party, which resulted in the ‘demise of critical thought’:

‘Critical thought had always been trained outward but seldom inward. […]

Submissiveness and obedience being the implicitly favored traits, cadres

who faithfully carried Party directives were more easily promoted.

Mavericks and dissenters were often criticized as troublesome. This

resulted in a population of cadres who are more efficient in

accomplishing tasks and facilitating implementation down the line of

command than scrutinizing their nuances and merits.’[88]

For Garcia, these factors created a catastrophic conclusion, where

orders were not questioned, faithful communists were tortured and

murdered[89] and—as Bello suggests—paranoia was the rule of the day.[90]

This crisis of Left authoritarianism was also one of the issues in the

Reaffirmist–Rejectionist Schism, or the Second Great Rectification, as

it is known in the Communist Party. To briefly introduce the matter, the

so-called ‘Rejectionists’ or ‘RJs’ are so-called because they rejected

the reaffirmation of Maoist doctrines within the Communist Party of the

Philippines and then split from the party because of this disagreement.

Those that stayed with the Party and their line are called

‘Reaffirmists’ or ‘RAs,’ because they uphold the 1991 Party document

known as ‘Reaffirm Our Basic Principles,’ or simply “Reaffirm.”

Rejectionists are ideologically diverse, ranging from de-Stalinised

forms of Marxism-Leninism, Fourth Internationalism, and democratic

socialism. The Rejectionists are not a coherent bloc, and are also prone

to factionalism and schisms. In contrast, the Reaffirmists are also

called National Democrats or NatDems/NDs because they form an

ideologically-tight tendency following the political line of National

Democracy (in other words, they believe that a socialist revolution is

impossible without a democratic revolution first; this is the theory of

the Two-Stage revolution officially adopted by the CPP. See Pabico 1999

for a more comprehensive summary[91]).

Against ’Reaffirm,’ a document was distributed among the milieus

commenting on the document ‘Reaffirm,’ entitled ‘Resist Authoritarian

Tendencies within the Party! Let a Thousand Schools of Thought

Contend!’[92] In it, the anonymous author signed as ‘Ka Barry’ or

‘Comrade Barry’ criticised how theoretical and strategic documents were

put out and then retracted by the Central Committee and Politbur.[93] Ka

Barry decried the way the Party document ‘Reaffirm,’ which had been

signed by Armando Liwanag (the pen name of CPP founder and chief

ideologue Joe Maria Sison), was disseminated. This resulted in the

questioning of whether the rectification campaign advocated by

‘Reaffirm’ was the decision of the Central Committee, the Politburo, the

Executive Committee, or just Liwanag himself.[94] Ka Barry contended

that there was not enough democracy in the party, and that the

‘rectification campaign’ was a call for a purge.[95] Ka Barry opposed

this purge:

‘The call for a purge is a sign of desperation. It seems that when

people cannot be convinced through democratic discussion and debate,

extreme organizational measures are being conjured to resolve the issue.

A purge would have disastrous consequences on the Party and the

revolutionary movement. It would divide the Party or cause large-scale

resignations. It would discredit the Party to a lot of its national and

international allies. Any attempts to conduct a purge should therefore

be vigorously opposed and resisted.

The Party faces the threat of authoritarianism, a form of one-man rule

that recognizes only one set of views—its own, that considers all others

as “erroneous” or “muddleheaded,” and that brooks no criticism and uses

extreme measures against those who criticize.’[96]

Notable in this excerpt is Ka Barry’s foresight, in that the Party was

indeed discredited and divided through mass resignations. Ironically, Ka

Barry ends their polemic by calling for a new Party congress to address

the burning issues of the day, but the Second Party Congress would not

be held until 2016.[97] The late assembly of the Second Party Congress

suggests that the party elite only allowed the congress to occur when

they were sure they could control its outcome, perhaps proving Ka

Barry’s fears quite valid. Indeed, the communiqué of the Second Party

Congress implies that a rubber-stamp assembly simply affirmed what was

already becoming standard procedure.[98]

The crisis of authoritarianism and its relation to Philippine anarchism

is explicitly dealt with in a dissertation by Loma Cuevas-Hewitt,[99]

who collated oral histories of Philippine anarchism in chapter 10 of

their dissertation. In this chapter, Cuevas-Hewitt narrated the

development of a crisis of authoritarianism experienced in the

Philippine radical milieus in the post-Marcos period. This was

experienced within the Communist Party of the Philippines and outside of

it. Part of their argument is that the schism and crisis in the

Communist Party of the Philippines ‘precipitated a flowering of

feminism, environmentalism, and anarchism in the Philippines, all of

which had been held in check by the Maoists’ hegemony over the

Left.’[100] Some Rejectionists sought to undo the ‘distortions’ in

Marxism done by Mao Zedong and Joma Sison to articulate non-Maoist forms

of Marxism (ibid.), while others articulated other ideological frames

such as environmentalism and anarchism.

One of the frames Cuevas-Hewitt identifies as an example is a text by

Serrano,[101] ‘Re-imagining Philippine revolution,’ that essentially

re-invents anarchist principles through the framing of Popular

Democracy. Serrano argues,

‘There is no blueprint as yet, only preferred principles. Socialist here

means greater democracy than what both capitalism and socialism have

offered so far. The stress is more on society rather than the state. We

favor the strengthening of the people’s sovereignty over resources and

decisions. The lower the decision center is in the power ladder, the

better; we have no illusion about the centralized and top-down nature of

both the state and corporate institutions. We are set to build

accountability safeguards from the social side of the power equation.

This task extends to disempowering and bringing down unaccountable

institutions.’[102]

Interesting here is that Serrano mimics the anarchist adage, ‘there is

no blueprint for a free society,’ and that Serrano explicitly discounts

state-mediated mechanisms. Serrano continues:

‘We challenge the notion that tends to reduce revolution to capture of

state power. We are not anarchists, but we believe strongly in social

empowerment. It is possible that revolutionaries could come to power

without completely capturing or smashing the state machinery. In such a

scenario, society would be stronger than the state which, to us, is more

desirable.

We reject the monopoly power substitution that happened in nearly all

communist-led revolutions. We are for dispersing power across the social

spectrum. Even the communists themselves stand to gain more in

strengthening, rather than undermining, civil society.[103] […]

We cannot wait for the natural withering away of the state. We are

committed to create the basis for such a process here and now. That is

why the bias of our activity is toward social empowerment.’[104]

In these passages, we find a clear reinventing of anarchist principles

albeit using the framework of Popular Democracy, despite the disclaimer,

‘we are not anarchists.’ There is a clear call towards a ‘greater

democracy’ than what the so-called actually-existing socialisms have

offered so far. Serrano championed ‘people’s sovereignty,’ where

decisions are done on ‘lower’ levels, and even explicitly challenges the

equation of revolution to the capture of state power. This is similar in

comparison to Grubačić’s ‘Anarchism, as I learned it from my comrades,

was about taking democracy seriously and organizing

prefiguratively.’[105] The practice of direct democracy itself is not an

exclusively anarchist idea, but it is one closely closely associated

with the conceptual framework of anarchism, albeit combined with

anti-authoritarian politics and non-hierarchical practice.[106] Serrano

additionally says that ‘we cannot wait for the natural withering away of

the state.’ This recalls the common anarchist critique of the Marxist

notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat.[107] Cuevas-Hewitt

similarly argues that ‘Serrano re-imagined revolution as a process

rather than an event; more an undercutting than an overthrowing’ and

that this ‘is the precise approach taken by present-day anarchists in

their building of counter-institutions and their efforts to

cooperativise all that capitalists would wish privatised and that

statists would wish nationalised.’[108]

We have to keep in mind, however, that Serrano’s Popular Democracy

really is disclaimed as ‘not anarchist.’ Despite this, there is a clear

libertarian bent in its reinvention of anti-statism and horizontalism as

principles that aligns with the conceptual framework of anarchism.

Serrano was not the only one re-inventing anarchism, either. As early as

1986, there were communist cadres questioning Party orthodoxy.[109] In

one oral history provided by a former New Peoples’ Army (NPA) guerrilla

and cadre, ‘Edwin’ recounts how he and his comrades in the cadre arrived

upon anarchism after being derogatorily called as ‘anarchist’ by senior

cadres:

‘In 1986, we were still good Maoists, loyal Maoists at that time… but we

were already reading [Paulo] Freire. And the senior cadres were

discrediting us for reading Freire… I think after three years, they got

tired of us… They simply severed us and that was the end. After that,

some of us started discovering [György] Lukács and [Antonio] Gramsci…

[and the] postmodernist writers. And then the senior cadres were

branding us as anarchist, but we didn’t even know what anarchism was… So

we started reading up on anarchy and anarchism and realised: “Yeah,

we’re anarchists! They’re right!”’ (Edwin recounted to

Cuevas-Hewitt[110])

In this passage, we see Edwin and his comrades in the cadre

independently coming upon anarchist conclusions. Edwin would later

become part of an anti-statist current in the milieu of Popular

Democracy after leaving the Party.[111]

These accounts from Bello, Garcia, Ka Barry, Serrano, and Edwin all

suggest a deep crisis of authoritarianism in the milieu of the Communist

Party. However, this crisis of authoritarianism was not restricted to

the Communist Party and National Democracy. It was also present in the

Rejectionist milieu. In one case, Cuevas-Hewitt interviewed ‘Leon’ who

was formerly a militant socialist in the Rejectionist milieu, who

eventually moved towards anarchism because of the authoritarianism

experienced in his socialist organization. Cuevas-Hewitt noted that Leon

‘was taught to scorn the RAs for their authoritarianism, but grew tired

of the authoritarianism within his own organisation as well. For this

reason, he began gravitating in an anarchist direction.’[112] As Leon

himself recalls:

‘If we wanted to organize our own local struggles at that time, they

would always say, “Oh, coordinate it with the national committee of the

student sector.” We always had to ask permission; that’s how it works.

So yeah, eventually I got pissed off with this kind of authoritarian

tradition, and I saw a different mode of expressing politics in the

[Metro Manila Anarchist Confederation]… They’re very dynamic; they don’t

need to have a party.’ (Leon, recounted to Cuevas-Hewitt[113])

Because the crisis of authoritarianism was felt in both the Reaffirmist

and Rejectionist camps, activists like Leon gravitated towards more

libertarian and anarchist frames. It is in statements like Leon’s that

we see that Philippine anarchism is also partly a reaction to and a

disillusionment with the politics of the mainstream left of both RA and

RJ camps.

This reaction and rejection of mainstream left politics is further

corroborated in other accounts as well. For example, a popular

Philippine anarchist text by Cuevas-Hewitt (2007) (the same

Cuevas-Hewitt who wrote the dissertation) argued that the framework of

National Democracy is ironic in that:

‘despite their purported goal of liberating themselves from western

cultural hegemony and political control, they arguably have yet to

decolonise themselves of western imperialist logics; for example, those

Enlightenment-derived logics pertaining to the transcendence of reason,

the human, and the nation-state.’[114]

This is anationalism and a rejection of the nationalist framing of the

Philippine left. One justification for anationalism given by Bas Umali

is that the ‘flourishing modernist ideas from the West, such as

nationalism, reinforced statist thinking among the locals.’[115]

Anationalism here connects nationalism to the project of the

nation-state, which an anarchist conceptual framework rejects. Important

as well is Umali’s influential text ‘Archipelagic Confederation,’[116]

which lays the groundwork for an anationalism grounded in the history of

indigenous resistance in the Philippines. It also contains jabs at

National Democracy. He says:

‘A confederation offers an alternative political structure based on a

libertarian framework, i.e., nonhierarchical and non-statist, which is

doable and applicable. It is doable compared to the thirty-five-year-old

struggle of the CPP-NPA-NDF [the Communist Party and its united front],

which, after taking tens of thousands of lives, has not delivered any

concrete economic and political output for the Filipino people.

Moreover, the alternatives being proposed by mainstream leftist groups

outside the NDF [National Democratic Front; an organization that the CPP

chairs] offer no substantial difference, for they all adhere to the

state and to capturing political power—an objective that cannot be

realized in the near future.’[117]

This simultaneous rejection of the state-centred paradigms of both the

camps of National Democracy and of the Rejectionists captures the moment

Philippine anarchism finds itself. That there is a flowering of

anarchist literature emerging after the crisis of authoritarianism is

suggestive that this crisis factored into the mobilization of anarchism.

Internationally, the collapse of state socialism also led to a

resurgence of anarchist ideology world-wide. D. M. Williams and Lee

(2012) noted that the collapse of the Soviet bloc was the ‘most

important political opportunity’ that enabled the remobilisation of

anarchism in the 1990s.[118] In the Philippines, the Soviet collapse

also factored into the crisis in the Philippine left.[119] This sort of

crisis of faith in state socialism happened all over the world and

allowed for the mobilization of anarchisms, especially in the Americas

and Europe.

This international mobilisation also factors into mobilisation in the

Philippines through international interaction. Anarchists elsewhere

would interact with Filipinos looking for their radical footing and the

ideas and tactics would diffuse through interactions. As we shall see

later, anarchists in the anti-neoliberal alter-globalisation’ movements

helped mobilize anarchism in the Philippines through diffusion.

Punkista as Mobilization

Punk and anarchism have a long history that spans nations. A new type of

anarchism emerged in the 1980s, such that punks in the late 70s started

referring to themselves as anarchists.[120] The strong

anti-authoritarian and confrontational sub-culture that punk rock

brought about naturally dovetailed with anarchist politics, and

anarcho-punk bands spread anarchism throughout the entire world.[121] In

some cases, like in the former Czechoslovakia (the current Czechia and

Slovakia), punk was a particularly strong influence on the reemergence

of anarchism in those countries (Slaèálek 2002 quoted in D. M. Williams

[122]). In other cases like in Venezuela, anarcho-punk is the ‘most

consolidated and publicly visible source of anarchist ideas,’ and it is

a more popular tendency than other traditions (Nachie 2006 quoted in D.

M. Williams[123]). In a study of anarcho-punk scenes in the United

Kingdom, Indonesia, and Poland, Donaghey (2016) noted multiple ‘sites of

connection’ between punk and anarchism such as in anarchist-inspired

lyrics, personal expression of anarchist politics by punks, punk gigs

benefiting anarchist groups, overlap between punks scenes and anarchist

activist milieus, and the role of punk in politicising people towards

anarchist politics.[124] In terms of the mobilisation of anarchism, punk

is a ‘cultural’ opportunity rather than a strictly political opportunity

because of the use of cultural rather than political factors. Still,

punk acts like a political opportunity for mobilisation through the safe

spaces that punk cultivates for anti-authoritarian and DIY

(do-it-yourself) politics, together with the shared counter-culture,

which allows values such as anti-racism, feminism, ecologism, and

veganism to grow.[125]

We see the same dynamics play out in the Philippines. The punkista scene

provided a place for ‘unity and equality for all,’ as one punk

explains.[126] That punk provides an environment in which anarchist

politics is articulated is also noted by Filipino anarchists:

‘Once it had become popular, punk rock represented the dissatisfaction

of the Filipino youth with conservative Philippine society. What, in the

beginning, seemed like just another musical upheaval, very apolitical in

nature, later developed into a radical challenge of authority. Youth

into punk rock started to explore the politics of DIY and anarchism that

were associated with it. (Pairez in Pairez, Umali, and Kuhn[127])

‘Kasi dati, yung mga 1980s na punk, mas cultural ‘yun eh. … Sex Pistols

na anarchy ‘yun. Karamihan sa kanila, mas na-o-organize pa ng Left… Pero

mga 1996, diyan na nagsulputan na nililinaw ng mga indibidwal na ito na

hindi sila Marxist, hindi kami leftists, kami ay mga anarchists.’ (Umali

as told to Ladrido[128])

[Back in the day, the 1980s punk was more cultural. … It was anarchy of

the Sex Pistols. Many of them organized with the Left… But by 1996,

there were individuals who clarified that they were not Marxist nor

leftists, but rather, anarchists.]

In these examples, the rooting of punk laid the groundwork for later

anarchist identities. Interesting to note is also the mechanism of

reaction to the political dynamics in Philippine society, similar to

what we saw in the previous section. In Umali’s quote in particular, we

see the articulation of an anarchist identity, as opposed to Marxist or

Leftist identity.

In another example in the anarchist milieu of Davao, the history of punk

and anarchism cannot be separated. The Davao Anarchist Resistance

Movement (DARM) explicitly emerged from punk and hardcore bands and

partook in projects such as ecological campaigns like Kinaiyahan Unahon

[Nature First] and community kitchens such as Food Not Bombs.[129]

In all of these examples, we see that the dynamics that punk played in

the mobilisation of anarchism elsewhere also plays out in the

Philippines. However, much of the history of these dynamics remains

oral. The anonymously written history of anarcho-punks in Davao by Tanex

& Lander (2020) is a rare record of the various oral histories of

anarcho-punk. A more systematic examination of the manifestations of

punk and anarcho-punk in the Philippines is still yet to be written.

International Interaction and Mobilization

The final factor that has mobilised Philippine anarchism is

international interactions with anarchists abroad. For example, the

relationship between the exiled Japanese anarchist Kotoku Shusui and

other anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin facilitated the dissemination

of anarchism in Japan, with Kotoku acting as translator and

mediator.[130] In the Philippines, we see Isabelo de los Reyes

interacting with Spanish anarchists in the late 19^(th) and early

20^(th) centuries, leading to the mobilisation of socialist and

anarchist ideas in the Philippines. Upon his return, de los Reyes

facilitated the dissemination of socialist and anarchist ideas, as

concretely manifested in books like Malatesta’s Dalawang Magbubukid and

Banaag at Sikat.

Similarly, international interactions in the late 20^(th) and early

21^(st) century helped mobilise anarchism in the Philippines. Part of

this interaction was framed through the lens of the

‘alter-globalization’ movement which opposed the expansion of neoliberal

institutions.

As a movement, the alter-globalization movement tended to have—as

Epstein (2001) argued—an ‘anarchist sensibility’ oriented towards direct

action, anti-authoritarianism, equality, and democracy.[131] Rather than

simply a sensibility, Baverel (2017) argued that anarchist values and

practices were present in the alter-globalization movement, Occupy, and

the Arab Spring.[132] This libertarian sensibility and the movement’s

already anti-authoritarian nature allowed for anarchist ideas and

practices to permeate. This in turn mobilised anarchism globally.

A crucial moment in the alter-globalization movement was the ‘Battle of

Seattle’ in 1999, where concentrated opposition to the World Trade

Organization (WTO) summit in Seattle, Washington, gave birth to a

network that would become the alter-globalization movement today. In

addition to punk, the Battle of Seattle is noted to have an effect on

anarchism in the Philippines. As Umali says:

‘The [Philippine anarchist] movement attracted an increasing number of

individuals, especially after the anti-WTO riots in Seattle ignited by

the black bloc—the “propaganda by the deed” of our time. … Numerous

collectives have formed since then in the National Capital Region (NCR),

Davao, Cebu, Lucena, and other cities.’ (Umali in Pairez, Umali, and

Kuhn[133])

The very visible opposition to the WTO’s neoliberalism in Seattle became

a signal point to others elsewhere, diffusing anarchist ideas. In an

essay in the Philippine anarchist journal Gasera Journal, Gabriel Kuhn

(2011) terms this diffusion as ‘transnational community building’, and

notes the influence of the anti-neoliberalism in the development of

transnational connections between the global North and South:

‘In the context of the Philippines, it appears that the 1999 Seattle

anti-WTO protests—which, despite a notable presence of comrades from the

global South, were dominated by activists from the global North—provided

major inspiration for the islands’ contemporary anarchist movement. At

the same time, the Seattle protests drew a lot of inspiration from

struggles of Southern communities. This only confirms the important

multilateral aspect of the anti-privilege struggle.’[134]

In this, Kuhn notes the multilateral nature of transnational community

building with events and actors from both the global north and south

factoring into each others’ mobilisations. Interesting as well in Kuhn’s

account is that he first interacted with Philippine anarchism through

its diaspora with Filipino migrant workers in Japan,[135] mirroring

similar international interactions by de los Reyes and Kotoku in their

exiles.

Later mobilisations in Occupy Wall Street in the United States would

again have ripples in the Philippines. Umali ([2011] 2020) would connect

the struggles of Occupy in the United States to the Philippines in an

‘Occupy Luneta.’ Though Occupy Luneta did not develop into a significant

Occupy on the scale of other Occupies, we still see the mechanisms of

diffusion and Kuhn’s transnational community building play out.[136]

An emerging but understudied mechanism as well is the use of online

communication to develop mobilization. Online and print publications are

evermore platforming voices from the global South, while publications

based in the Philippines continue to develop new translations of

anarchist work written abroad. Likely this new republic of letters will

play a role in the mobilisations to come. Further study will be needed

on these matters.

Mobilizations Past and Future

In this essay, I have sketched how Philippine anarchism roots itself in

the indigenous traditions of the archipelago known as the Philippines,

and in the country’s radical history. We have seen how international

interactions factored into the mobilisation of the ‘anarchism that

almost was’ during the American colonial period, and in the contemporary

anarchist milieu that emerged in the 90s. In the first part of this

essay, we have also seen how the two precedents of Philippine anarchism

in the ‘anarchism that almost was’ and of the First Quarter Storm were

totally absorbed into the Marxist milieus, leaving almost no trace

afterwards. However, we have also seen that when the Marxist milieu went

into crisis and fragmented, anarchism found space to reemerge as a

distinct tendency. We also saw how punk rock and punkista subculture

factored into forming this anarchist tendency.

However, there are still many unanswered questions. There is still not

yet a definitive study on either the extent of anarchist ideology during

the American colonial period or of the Chinese anarchists based in

Manila in the first two decades of the 1900s. Perhaps a study of primary

sources would reveal deeper anarchist international cooperation than

what the current literature suggests. As noted in earlier sections, the

question of whether the Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan Mendiola

(SDKM) really was anarchist is still in the air. If they were

anarchists, we do not know where this anarchism came from. It was too

early for anarchism to have been disseminated by punk which came to the

country in the 90s. However, the SDKM emerged after 1968 when anarchism

experienced a small revival due to the May ’68 events in France and the

global unrest that followed. Perhaps the anarchism of ’68 and of the

emerging New Left factored into the anarchism of the SDKM through

international interactions? Perhaps primary sources from the SDKM can

prove illuminating. Furthermore, much of the history of the Philippine

anarchist milieu remains unwritten. I am curious about the oral

histories of those emerging from the original RA–RJ schism who moved

towards anarchist frames. Who were those discovering anarchism while

still deep in the paradigms of the Communist Party? What happened to

them, and where did they end up? Popular Democracy and other tendencies

like it later formed part of a Green tendency. The Greens in the

Philippines retain a certain libertarian bent; perhaps there is some

cross-fertilisation between the Greens and those brandishing black

flags? I recognize that some Green ideas such as social ecology, deep

ecology, and biocentrism form tendencies within Philippine anarchism.

Cuevas-Hewitt (2016) does some work in their dissertation to connect the

Green and Black. More might be found with further study.

Another fruitful avenue of study would be to survey the political and

anti-political positions in the Philippine anarchist milieu. D. M.

Williams (2017) does an excellent review of tendencies in the anarchist

milieu of North America, and perhaps something similar can be done for

the Philippines and Southeast Asia. From my personal observations,

post-leftism dominates the mindscape of Philippine anarchists. I suspect

that this dynamic is due to the peculiar experience of Filipino

anarchists with the left. Ecological ideas also predominate. However, it

is clear that there is not yet an anarchist political organisation

in-country, rather, there are affinity groupings, small collectives, and

a broad and loose network called the Local Autonomous Network. Neither

is there an anarchist presence in the labor movement, nor an

insurrectionary tendency. Why is it that the anarchist milieus of

Bangladesh and Indonesia are able to develop labor organisations but

those of the Philippines have not? A comparative analysis of various

anarchist milieus across countries might be able to provide insight.

Perhaps the presence or absence of a large left grouping like National

Democracy can explain some peculiarities.

How about the future of anarchist mobilisation in the Philippines? I

would think the slow demobilisation of National Democracy and the

Communist Party is a continuing political opportunity for those outside

the umbrella of both groups. However, this is not a clear win for

anarchists, as there are other Rejectionist groupings that are better

organised with political organisations—something Philippine anarchism

lacks. These political organisations are better capable of absorbing

those dissatisfied with National Democracy, but who still want to

organize. It is unfortunate that the post-leftism of Philippine

anarchism tends towards anti-organizationalism, thus alienating

potential comrades. The future is still unwritten, and Philippine

anarchism can still diversify into new political niches. Perhaps a

political organization will be founded in the future. As for the

possibility of a reabsorption into Philippine Marxism, I find the

chances of that unlikely as long as the Philippine left continues on its

current course, with National Democracy weakened after the crisis and

purge, and Rejectionists still fragmented as ever. If not proletarian

niches, perhaps Philippine anarchism can enter into unoccupied niches.

For example, there is not yet a police and prison abolitionist movement,

but there is a crisis in policing. It is possible that Filipino

anarchists can adopt that framing.

What will also encourage future mobilisation of Philippine anarchism is

the continuing mobilisation of anarchism in other countries which

disseminate these ideas, frames, and practices across the world. The

existence of other libertarian projects like the Zapatistas in Chiapas

or Rojava in Syria can also continue to inspire alternatives. Important

as well is that there is no socialist superpower that subsidises

Marxism-Leninism. Anarchism is currently at a level playing field with

Marxism-Leninism and Maoism in terms of international relations with no

major powers supporting either. The People’s Republic of China, that

darling of Dengists the world over, cares very little for the

subsidisation and development of communist parties since the capitalist

restoration in China while the Russian Federation cares about fascists,

neo-Nazis, and National ‘Bolsheviks’ more than Marxists.

The world is still very much in crisis with civil unrest and political

violence reaching new levels, if the years of 2019–2021 are any

indication. Anarchism reemerges as one of the tendencies in this new age

of new (anti-)politics. With the growing resurgence and popularisation

of anarchism worldwide, it is my hope that this study can contribute to

an understanding of the emerging political landscape.

[1] Franks, Benjamin, Nathan J. Jun, and Leonard A. Williams, eds. 2018.

Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Group.

[2] Franks, Jun, and Williams 2018, 7–8.

[3] Williams, Dana M., and Matthew T. Lee. 2012. “Aiming to Overthrow

the State (Without Using the State): Political Opportunities for

Anarchist Movements.” Comparative Sociology 11 (4): 558–93

[4] Williams, Dana M., and Matthew T. Lee. 2012, 571–81.

[5] Williams, Dana M., and Matthew T. Lee. 2012, 572.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2015. Contentious Politics.

2^(nd) ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 20, 59.

[9] McAdam, Doug. 1996. “Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future

Direction.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by

Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, 1^(st) ed., 23–40.

Cambridge University Press, 27.

[10]

D. M. Williams 2017, 114–15; D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 561–62.

[11]

D. M. Williams 2017, 115–16; D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 562–64

[12]

D. M. Williams 2017, 116; D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 563

[13]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 563.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 571–81.

[17]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 572–79.

[18]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 580; L. Williams 2007, 297.

[19]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 572–75.

[20] Gasera Journal. 2011. Gasera Journal. Vol. 1. 1. Mindset Breaker

Press.

[21] Pairez, Jong, Bas Umali, and Gabriel Kuhn. (2010) 2020. “Anarchism

in the Philippines: Interview with Jong Pairez and Bas Umali.” In

Pangayaw and Decolonizing Resistance: Anarchism in the Philippines, by

Bas Umali, 12–23. Oakland: PM Press.

[22] White, Roger. 2005. “Post Colonial Anarchism.” In Post Colonial

Anarchism: Essays on Race, Repression and Culture in Communities of

Color: 1999–2004, 10–34. Oakland CA: Jailbreak Press.

https://archive.org/details/jailbreak_2005_post_colonial_anarchism_book.

[23] Mbah, Sam, and I. E. Igariwey. 1997. African Anarchism: The History

of a Movement. Tucson, Ariz: See Sharp Press.

[24] Saint Andrew. 2021. “What Is Black Anarchism?”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saint-andrew-what-is-black-anarchism.

[25] Umali in Pairez, Umali, and Kuhn [2010] 2020, 14

[26] Kropotkin, Peter. 1995. “‘Anarchism,’ from ‘The Encyclopaedia

Britannica.’” In Kropotkin: ’The Conquest of Bread’ and Other Writings,

edited by Marshall S. Shatz, 1^(st) ed., 233–47. Cambridge University

Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139170734.023.

[27] Barclay, Harold B. 1990. People Without Government: An Anthropology

of Anarchy. Completely revised edition. London: Kahn & Averill.

[28] Graeber, David. 2004. Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology.

Chicago: Prickly Paradigm; The University of Chicago Press.

[29] White, Roger. 2005.

[30] Mbah, Sam, and I. E. Igariwey. 1997

[31] See for example Umali 2020, 38–40, 52, 89

[32] Pairez, Umali, and Kuhn [2010] 2020, 15.

[33] Barbin, Taks. 2018. “Ang Food Not Bombs sa Kapuluan.” Safehouse

Infoshop.

[34] Anderson, Benedict. 2013. The Age of Globalization: Anarchists and

the Anticolonial Imagination. 3^(rd) ed. London: Verso, 58.

[35] Aseniero, George. 2013. “From Cádiz to La Liga: The Spanish Context

of Rizal’s Political Thought.” Asian Studies: Journal of Critical

Perspectives on Asia 49 (1): 1–42.

https://asj.upd.edu.ph/index.php/archive/24-asian-studies-49-1-2013, 1–2

[36] Aseniero 2013, 32–36.

[37] Aseniero 2013, 37.

[38] Anderson 2013, 104–22.

[39] Scott, William Henry. 1992. The Union Obrera Democratica: First

Filipino Labor Union. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers.

[40] Anderson 2013, Chapter 5.

[41] Scalice, Joseph. 2017. “Crisis of Revolutionary Leadership: Martial

Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1957–1974.”

Unpublished. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32960.58887, pp. 343–44, 573, 726, 729;

2018, 500, 511

[42] Scott 1992, 13–14.

[43] Anderson 2013, 197–98.

[44] Scott 1992, 13–14.

[45] Anderson 2013, 200–201.

[46] Scott 1992, 15–17.

[47] Anderson 2013, 225–26.

[48] Scott 1992.

[49] Anderson 2013, 228–29.

[50] Scott 1992, 74.

[51] Malatesta 1913.

[52] Santos, Lope K. 1906. Banaag at Sikat: Nobelang Tagalog. 1^(st) ed.

Manila: S.P.

http://digitallibrary.ust.edu.ph/cdm/ref/collection/section5/id/90023.

[53] Fegan, Brian. 1982. “The Social History of a Central Luzon Barrio.”

In Philippine Social History: Global Trade and Local Transformation,

edited by Alfred McCoy and Ed de Jesus. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 107.

[54] Yong, C. F. 1997. The Origins of Malayan Communism. Singapore:

South Seas Society.

[55] Fernandez, Erwin S. 2009. “Anarchism, Philippines.” In The

International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, edited by Immanuel

Ness, 1–2. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0068.

[56] Damier, Vadim, and Kirill Limanov. 2017a. “Anarchism in Indonesia.”

Libcom.org.

https://libcom.org/library/short-essay-about-history-anarchism-indonesia.

[57] Fernandez 2009.

[58] Fernandez 2009.

[59] Fernandez 2009.

[60] Anderson 2013, 229.

[61] Damier and Limanov 2017a, 2017b.

[62]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 572.

[63]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 572.

[64] Scalice 2017, 343–44.

[65] Araos, Jerusalino (Jerry). 2008. “SDKM.” In SDK: Militant but

Groovy: Stories of Samahang Demokratiko Ng Kabataan, edited by Soliman

M. Santos Jr., 74–77. Pasig: Anvil, 74.

[66] Scalice 2017, 343–44.

[67] Scalice 2020, email correspondence.

[68] Scalice 2017, 344.

[69] Araos 2008, 76.

[70] Scalice 2017, 344 note 67.

[71] Araos 2008, 76–77.

[72] Scalice 2018, 500–511 note 17.

[73] Nobleza, Randy, and Jong Pairez. 2011. “Ang Potensyal na

Anarkistang Tendensiya ng Diliman Commune: Konsepto ng Kapwa sa ’71

Diliman Commune: Mga Level ng Pakikipagkapwa-tao at Sikolohiyang

Pilipino sa Karanasang Diliman Commune.” Gasera Journal 1: 4–9.

[74] Scalice 2018, 508.

[75] Araos 2008, 75.

[76] Hwang, Dongyoun. 2009. “Anarchism, Korea.” In The International

Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, edited by Immanuel Ness, 1–3.

Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

doi:10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp0063.

[77] Alston, Ashanti Omowali. 2002. “Beyond Nationalism But Not Without

It.” ONWARD.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ashanti-alston-beyond-nationalism-but-not-without-it.

[78] Scalice 2017, 343–44.

[79] Araos 2008, 76.

[80] Cuevas-Hewitt, Loma (Marco). 2007. “Sketching Towards an

Archipelagic Poetics of Postcolonial Belonging.” Budhi: A Journal of

Ideas and Culture 11 (1): 239–46.

https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/viewFile/438/433.

[81] Scalice 2017, 726–29.

[82] Scalice 2020.

[83] Lapeña, Carmela G. 2012. “They Left Us in 2012, Filipinos Who Made

Their Mark.” GMA News Online, December 31.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190704083826/https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/content/288312/they-left-us-in-2012-filipinos-who-made-their-mark/story/.

[84] Bello, Walden. 1992. “The Crisis of the Philippine Progressive

Movement: A Preliminary Investigation.” Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal

of Third World Studies 8 (1): 166–77.

https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/view/304.

[85] Bello, Walden. 1992, 175.

[86] Garcia, Robert Francis B. 2018. To Suffer Thy Comrades: How the

Revolution Decimated Its Own. Revised edition. Mandaluyong City,

Philippines: Anvil Publishing.

[87] Garcia, Robert Francis B. 2018, 104.

[88] Garcia, Robert Francis B. 2018, 105.

[89] Ibid.

[90] Bello, Walden. 1992, 172.

[91] Pabicio, Alecks P. 1999. “The Great Left Divide.” I, The

Investigative Reporting Magazine, April–June.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110624004753/pcij.org/imag/specialreport/left.html.

[92] Ka Barry. 1992. “Resist Authoritarian Tendencies Within the Party!

Let a Thousand Schools of Thought Contend!” Kasarinlan: Philippine

Journal of Third World Studies 8 (1): 158–65.

https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/view/303.

[93] Ka Barry. 1992, 158.

[94] Ka Barry. 1992, 159.

[95] Ka Barry. 1992, 164–5.

[96] Ka Barry. 1992, 165.

[97] CPP. 2017. “Communiqué: Second Congress Communist Party of the

Philippines.” Politics. National Democratic Front of the Philippines.

March 29.

https://ndfp.org/communique-second-congress-communist-party-of-the-philippines/.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Cuevas-Hewitt, Loma. 2016. “Re-Imagined Communities: The Radical

Imagination from Philippine Independence to the Postcolonial Present.”

Dissertation, Perth, Australia: The University of Western Australia.

https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/portalfiles/portal/9794911/THESIS_DOCTOR_OF_PHILOSOPHY_CUEVAS_HEWITT_Marco_2016.pdf.

[100] Cuevas-Hewitt, Loma. 2016, 293.

[101] Serrano, Isagani. 1994. “Re-Imagining Philippine Revolution.”

Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies 10 (2): 71–81.

https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/kasarinlan/article/view/885.

[102] Serrano, Isagani. 1994, 75.

[103] Serrano, Isagani. 1994, 80.

[104] Serrano, Isagani. 1994, 81.

[105] Franks, Benjamin, Nathan J. Jun, and Leonard A. Williams, eds.

2018. Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. New York: Routledge, Taylor &

Francis Group.

[106] Franks, Benjamin, Nathan J. Jun, and Leonard A. Williams, eds.

2018, 105.

[107] McKay, Iain, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal, and Ed Boraas, eds. 2020. An

Anarchist FAQ. Version 15.4 (17-Mar-2020). 2 vols. The Anarchist FAQ

Editorial Collective. http://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html.

[108] Cuevas-Hewitt, Loma. 2016, 294.

[109] Cuevas-Hewitt, Loma. 2016, 297.

[110] Ibid.

[111] Cuevas-Hewitt 2016, 295.

[112] Cuevas-Hewitt 2016, 292.

[113] Cuevas-Hewitt 2016, 297.

[114] Cuevas-Hewitt 2007, 240.

[115] Umali, Bas. 2020. Pangayaw and Decolonizing Resistance: Anarchism

in the Philippines. Edited by Gabriel Kuhn. Oakland: PM Press.

[116] Umali 2020, 35–51.

[117] Umali 2020, 36.

[118] Williams, Dana M., and Matthew T. Lee. 2012. “Aiming to Overthrow

the State (Without Using the State): Political Opportunities for

Anarchist Movements.” Comparative Sociology 11 (4): 558–93.

doi:10.1163/15691330-12341236. p.579.

[119] Bello 1992, 170.

[120] Williams, Dana M. 2017. Black Flags and Social Movements: A

Sociological Analysis of Movement Anarchism. Contemporary Anarchist

Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p.133; Cf. Donaghey

2016.

[121]

D. M. Williams 2017, 133.

[122]

D. M. Williams 2017, 134.

[123]

D. M. Williams 2017, 134.

[124] Donaghey, Jim. 2016. “Punk and Anarchism: UK, Poland, Indonesia.”

Dissertation, UK: Loughborough University.

https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/punk-and-anarchism-uk-poland-indonesia(67005cb4-5890-4e6b-82bf-b04426a715d2).html,

2016, 41–42.

[125]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 580–81.

[126] Kohl, Jess, dir. 2018. Anarchy in the Philippines. Dazed.

Philippines: Dazed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtSZt_KeiGU&t=5s.

[127] Umali, and Kuhn [2010] 2020, 18.

[128] Ladrido, Portia. 2017. “The Anarchists Making a Difference in

Philippine Society.” News. CNN Philippines. September 28.

https://cnnphilippines.com/life/culture/2017/09/06/anarchists-making-a-difference-in-Philippine-society.html.

[129] Tanex & Lander. 2020. “Brief History of Punk, Hardcore, and DIY

Scene in Davao City, Philippines.” Distronka Sistema.

https://sea.theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tanex-lander-brief-history-of-punk-hardcore-and-diy-scene-in-davao-city-philippines-en.

[130]

D. M. Williams and Lee 2012, 575.

[131] Epstein, Barbara. 2001. “Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization

Movement.” Monthly Review 53 (4): 1. doi:10.14452/MR-053-04-2001-08_1.

[132] Baverel, Clifford. 2017. “Modern Anarchism in Social Movements:

From the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall Street Movement.” Emulations —

Revue de Sciences Sociales, no. 19 (March): 71–88.

doi:10.14428/emulations.019.002.

[133] Pairez, Umali, and Kuhn [2010] 2020, 17.

[134] Kuhn 2011, 14.

[135] Kuhn 2011, 14.

[136] Umali, Bas. (2011) 2020. “Social Revolution Is the Solution.”

Alimpuyo Press.

https://bandilangitim.noblogs.org/2020/05/30/social-revolution-is-the-solution/.