First Published: Obreros En Marcha, Vol. 1, No. 8, July 24, 1975.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
During the latter part of June, a delegation from the Popular Socialist Movement (MSP) of Puerto Rico visited several cities in the United States. The delegation, led by the M.S.P. Secretary General, had the dual objective of establishing contact and exchange of political views with progressive and revolutionary organizations in the United States as well as introducing the M.S.P. to leading North American organizations and individuals.
The delegation culminated its 10 day visit to the United States by participating in a political forum on “Tactics and Strategy for National Liberation and the U.S. Proletarian Revolution”. This activity held at the Washington Square Methodist Church on June 28th, was sponsored by El Comite-MINP and co-sponsored Workers Viewpoint, Congress of Afrikan People and the October League. Over 400 people attended the activity that was characterized in general by the discipline and seriousness of all present.
Within their presentation and in response to questions from the floor, the M.SP dealt with several aspects of the National Liberation struggle in Puerto Rico and their role in contributing toward the building of a revolutionary Proletarian Party in Puerto Rico. Among the fundamental points brought by the M.S.P. was their Tactical and Strategical analysis for the Puerto Rican revolution. Within this context the M.S.P. put forth that any strategical conception of struggle in Puerto Rico must be defined by the concrete analysis of concrete conditions and situations as they are manifested in Puerto Rico as well as a clear analysis of the role of the State in bourgeoisie society. As stated by the M.S.P. it is this application of Leninist principles that among other things points out the incorrectness of defining Puerto Rico as a “classical colony”, a concept which is maintained by another organization in Puerto Rico, the P.S.P. As viewed by the M.S.P. the concept of “classical colony” is a judicial definition void of scientific analysis. In the process such analysis disregards that with the development of capitalism in Puerto Rico as a result of the U.S. invasion of 1898, Puerto Rico has become an “industrial colony” characterized by: the non-existence of a significant peasantry; the objective alliance of the local ruling class to U.S. Imperialism as its very existence, its very dependence on the continued imperialist domination of Puerto Rico and the existence of a petty bourgeoisie whose interests become closely bound to U.S. capitalists’ interests. These aspects of Puerto Rican society coupled with the existence of a numerically large working class determine that strategically the struggle for Puerto Rican independence is fundamentally and predominantly a struggle for socialism.
Continuing in their discussion on strategical conceptions of struggle the M.S.P. stated that the fundamental method for liberation is armed struggle characterized by a protracted revolutionary war that would weaken the State in the revolutionary process. Expanding on this point, they stated that this did not negate utilizing other methods of struggle but that these must be guided by the fundamental conception of armed struggle. In response to a question from the floor which equated this concept to the “focus-guerrillarist theory” the M.S.P. responded that they were speaking of a protracted struggle led by a revolutionary Proletarian Party, that this was often distorted by reformist organizations whose reformist policies led them to negate the fundamental role of armed struggle in the revolutionary process. Similarly, others put forth the ambiguity of “utilizing all methods of struggle” without defining which are fundamental and which are not.
Another major point in the M.S.P. presentation dealt with the “divided nation” theory as it relates to Puerto Ricans in the United States. The M.S.P. expressed that Puerto Ricans in the U.S. form part of the socio-economic political structure in the United States and as such their struggles are the struggles of the multi-national U.S. working class for socialism, this not negating that due to their particular conditions they could be of great help in support of the national liberation struggle. The M.S.P. defined Puerto Ricans in the U.S. as a national minority in a multi-national state.
To the statement that in defining the National Liberation struggle as one for socialism the M.S.P. was in fact assuming a “Trotskyst” position in opposition to the “two stage revolution”. The M.S.P. once again brought forth that as Marxist-Leninists they upheld the principle of concrete analysis of concrete conditions as being determinant to their strategical conceptions and as part of this process they disagreed with the mechanical, applications of other revolutionary experiences to the concrete conditions of Puerto Rico. In this respect the study of class forces and relations in Puerto Rican society was part of their strategical conceptions.
The October League during their presentation expressed in general terms their solidarity with the struggle for independence and socialism ofthe Puerto Rican people in general and the Puerto Rican proletariat in particular. This position was also expressed by Workers Viewpoint and C.A.P. who also included as a part of their presentation the need for concrete support and joint practice and struggle among the most advanced organizations within the national minorities and in particular among Marxist-Leninists. During the presentations which were limited to ten minutes for the three participating Northamerican organizations, the OL and CAP would manifest disagreement with the MSP position on the planned conference in solidarity with Puerto Rico’s independence to be held in Havana during the month of September. The OL and CAP based their positions on the fact that the World Peace Council, the initiating body of the conference and other revisionists would be participating at this conference. The MSP maintained that not to participate in this international forum due to revisionist participation is an error, that Marxist-Leninists must struggle against revisionism in all fronts. Further, the MSP pointed out that the only theme for discussion at this conference is solidarity with Puerto Rico’s independence, that the principle has united 19 organizations in Puerto Rico as well as revolutionaries at the international level. In this respect, the MSP would not accept any violations of this principle inclusive at the conference itself.
The closing remarks to the forum were made by a representative of El Comite-MINP who on behalf of its Central Committee saluted ah\the participants in the activity. In the process El Comite – MINP pointed out in paraphrase,* that during this past year there has been a growth of solidarity with Puerto Rico among the Northamerican people yet these expressions of solidarity are being led by reformists and revisionists due to genuine Marxist–Leninists in principle understanding and arriving at principled unity, such as the forum, yet in general, we have been unable to transform this unity into social practice among the northamerican working class. In this sense, we have allowed the distortion of true international solidarity, which in essence is Proletarian Internationalism. Further, El Comite–MINP expressed how we generally understand Marx’s words that “no nation can be free it it oppresses another”, yet Marxist–Leninist forces still do not have a clear position on the question of Puerto Rico, a direct colony of U.S. imperialism. Within this context El Comite–MINP sees the question of Puerto Rico as well as other oppressed national minorities as “points of demarcation” in the process of building a true revolutionary Proletarian Party in the U.S. In their last remarks El Comite–MINP called for the support of all the participants at the evening activity for the Native Americans and in particular the American Indian Movement (AIM) who at those precise moments in Pine Ridge, were being terrorized by the FBI.
In general the stated objectives of the MSP delegation, which were shared by El Comite-MINP, were accomplished during their short visit to the United States. In addition, for the MSP this visit signifies a clearer insight as to the nature of the struggle of the North American working class, some of its leading organizations as well as their understanding of Puerto Rico’s struggle for national liberation. Further, the visit opens the channel toward concretizing mutual support and solidarity based on the principles of Proletarian Internationalism.