[Editor’s note: Filipino socialist activist Merck Maguddayao, from the Partido Lakas ng Masa, will be speaking at Ecosocialism 2025, September 5-7, Naarm/Melbourne, Australia. For more information on the conference visit ecosocialism.org.au.]
From time to time, it is worth returning to the works of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin to analyse and compare them with the situation we face today.
One particularly useful text is Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder. In it, he discusses the compromises socialists and revolutionary movements must sometimes make to advance their struggle at decisive moments of class conflict.
According to Lenin, “left-wing communism” suffered from political immaturity — an unwillingness to engage with the messy, contradictory and concrete world of class struggle.
For Lenin, “political compromise” meant dropping certain positions in order to reach an agreement with another force. Many translate this as kompromiso, which in Filipino carries the connotation of being coerced (for example, “I was compromised by the fact I received a bribe”). Konsesyon (concession) would perhaps be a more accurate term, but we shall use compromise, in the way Lenin did.
A socialist party committed to social transformation and systemic change will inevitably have to make compromises, especially when dealing with reformist forces in electoral alliances, coalitions and mass campaigns. It would be naive to reject compromise on principle — doing so would be, as Lenin said, a form of political infantilism.
Adopting a purist stance and refusing to participate in certain political arenas (such as elections, negotiations and alliances), means we risk isolating ourselves from the masses and their struggles. But if we simply tail bourgeois and liberal forces, we will end up being coopted — a far more serious mistake.
The challenge is to engage in independent political struggle, while maintaining the freedom to criticise any errors or excesses made by bourgeois and liberal allies.
On compromises
Guided by Lenin’s writing, let us now look at two main types of compromises. The first question we can ask ourselves is: is it acceptable for a revolutionary socialist movement to compromise with a ruling regime in order to unite against one of its rival factions?
This question arises today in the context of reports that Senators Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan may join President BongBong Marcos Jr’s Senate majority in the name of unity against the Duterte camp. Their goal is to secure key portfolios or committee posts to advance their “progressive” agenda.
But this example does not apply to the question above. While Aquino and Pangilinan are known liberal reformers, their record in the senate (Bam served 6 years from 2013–19; Kiko served 18 years from 2001–13, and then again between 2016–22) is one of consistently supporting neoliberal policies that are pro-market, pro-private investment and pro-Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) over state-led industrialisation and redistributive reform. The question above applies to socialist parties that stand for the overthrow of neoliberalism and the capitalist system.
It is not acceptable for a socialist party to compromise with a ruling regime — even if it does so for the purposes of opposing a more brutal faction. Doing so undermines the party’s purpose, violates its class independence, and erases the line between socialist and bourgeois politics.
Even the call to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte, which is being pushed by the Marcos camp, should not be supported merely as a matter of “good governance.” This reduces the critique of corruption to campaigning for a band-aid solution, rather than promoting a systemic approach. Socialists understand that corruption is rooted in the class character of the ruling regime, not just in the personal failings of individual politicians.
As socialists, we must expose all factions of the ruling class and their representatives, even when they are at war with each other. The idea that we should ally with one faction in order to gain some kind of advantage is an opportunist perspective. Instead, we must use their factional crisis to call for the overthrow of the corrupt elites and build a Gobyerno ng Masa (Government of the Masses).
We must learn from previous bitter experiences in which certain progressive parties supported or joined ruling regimes. Some even accepted cabinet positions in neoliberal governments whose very function was to preserve the dominance of the elite in the state, economy, and political institutions. This practice must end.
A socialist party must only represent the working class and the exploited, and never any faction of the ruling class. Compromise with the ruling elite blurs class lines, confuses the masses and misleads them about who their real enemies and allies are.
In the end, such compromise will lead to the defeat of the socialist movement, internal division and the disintegration of any united struggle against the ruling class and the system.
Lenin recognised that under certain conditions, the left could be forced into compromises by the concrete balance of forces — for example, where the very survival of the socialist movement is at stake.
He dramatises it as such:
Imagine that your car is held up by armed bandits. You hand them over your money, passport, revolver and car. In return you are rid of the pleasant company of the bandits. That is unquestionably a compromise. “Do ut des” (I “give” you money, fire-arms and a car “so that you give” me the opportunity to get away from you with a whole skin). It would, however, be difficult to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise to be “inadmissible on principle”, or who would call the compromiser an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits might use the car and the firearms for further robberies).
Lenin gives the example of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), where the newly formed Bolshevik government ceded large parts of its territory to Germany in return for ending the war. This allowed the revolution to survive and consolidate.
This cannot be compared to compromising with a ruling regime merely to gain positions on committees or “leverage for reforms.” That is not a matter of survival — it is purely driven by political opportunism. In many cases, these kinds of actions can lead to a loss of support, collapse, or even the complete disappearance of political forces involved in such “tactics”.
On ‘lesser evil’ politics
The second question we should ask ourselves is: is it acceptable for a socialist movement to support a “lesser evil” candidate against a “greater evil” in elections? If so, when and under what conditions?
According to Lenin, it is possible in certain cases to form an alliance with a “lesser evil” candidate in elections. For example, he advised British socialists to tactically support reformist Labour candidates against reactionaries such as David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. But he likened this support to the way “the rope supports the hanging man.“
The point of this support was not to strengthen the reformist leaders, but to expose their inevitable failure as many still had illusions in these politicians. Such support would allow the masses to learn through experience the futility of supporting such reformist leaders and that genuine change can only come from their own strength and organisation — not from elite allies.
“Lesser evil” politics is not a fixed doctrine. It is not based on the personalities or moral traits of the candidate; rather it is a strategy for exposing the elite’s class character. Moreover, supporting a “lesser evil” must always depend on the existence of an independent movement with the freedom to criticise liberal or bourgeois allies. And it can never be a permanent strategy.
Examples of the “lesser evil” approach in the Philippines include certain progressives supporting Noynoy Aquino against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2010, supporting Fernando Poe Jr against Arroyo in 2004, and supporting Joseph Erap Estrada against Jose de Venecia Jr in 1998.
In 2022, the Partido Lakas ng Masa (Party of the Labouring Masses, PLM) rejected this approach and ran its own candidates for national office. Instead of pursuing a “lesser evil” politics, the PLM supported an independent and alternative ticket composed of Ka Leody de Guzman for president and Walden Bello for vice president.
There were two main reasons for this. First, while independent candidate Leni Robredo did not belong to one of the political dynasties and had a reputation for good governance, she was a leader of the Liberal Party, which implemented neoliberal policies under Noynoy Aquino (for example, privatisation, PPPs, etc).
Second, supporting her as a “lesser evil” would have only reinforced illusions in the idea that elite democracy can deliver genuine solutions, rather than help build mass-based, working-class organisations for true systemic change.
In contrast to recent elections, the Ka Leody–Walden campaign was able to present a clear alternative platform, on a mass scale, which included issues such as a living wage, ending contractualisation, taxing the rich, and fighting dynasties and oligarchs.
In place of “lesser evil” politics, the PLM advanced a new tactic of genuine alternative politics that could gain the attention and support of the masses. This same tactic was used in the 2025 elections and may be further expanded in 2028.
Towards the 2028 elections
Continuing this new tactic will depend on the conditions we face going into 2028.
To go beyond the liberal opposition, we must help build a Grand Alliance Against Dynasties in the 2028 elections.Such a broad opposition to Marcos-Duterte rule and dynastic domination should be based on the following principles:
- Removing all political dynasties from national office;
- Repealing neoliberal policies and ending alliances with imperialist forces;
- Building a mass-based platform for government;
- Opening spaces for mass organisations within the state; and
- Maintaining political independence and freedom to criticise within any alliance
All this is in line with the lessons Lenin shared in “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder.
Genuine revolutionary tactics require the ability to enter into compromises without surrendering principles, and strengthening mass-based independent struggle while retaining the right to criticise liberal forces rather than be absorbed by them, all in order to advance the goal of dismantling elite and dynastic rule.
Sonny Melencio is the Chairperson of Partido Lakas ng Masa.
