First Published: The Guardian, November 20, 1974.
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.
The Oct. 27 rally at Madison Square Garden in solidarity with Puerto Rican independence–as well as the support actions elsewhere in the country–was a magnificent demonstration of proletarian internationalism. It was also a warning to U.S. imperialism that the day of reckoning in the Caribbean is coming closer.
The bourgeoisie seems to have gotten the message, as witness the scurrying of all the appropriate Puerto Rican politicians, both here and in the island, piously announcing that independence is about the last thing on the minds of the Puerto Rican people. The New York Times found it necessary to rush into print the day after the rally to solemnly declare that all this talk of independence represented only a handful of malcontents.
As one of the most significant and successful mass anti-imperialist actions of recent years, the Solidarity Day rally is worth examining a little more closely. In microcosm, it reflected all the contradictions of the left in the U.S., both strengths and weaknesses, and also revealed the vast reservoir of popular support waiting to be mobilized in the anti-imperialist struggle and the genuine potential for the new communist movement.
What conclusions might be drawn from the event?
Many groups expressed concern that the action was dominated by revisionism. It was a charge demonstrating the necessity for Marxist-Leninists to conduct concrete political investigation before shooting their mouths off.
The fact is that neither the Communist party (CP) nor any of the organizations in which it plays a dominant role had any significant influence on the action. They were not represented on the national board of the Solidarity Day Committee and never even became official sponsors of the event.
More important, the rally helped to bring forward and expose the ideological essence of revisionism. First, there was the way in which the CP tried to “take over” the action by asserting that its main aspect was to support the UN resolution on Puerto Rican independence.
But what happened? Not only was this view rejected by everyone associated with the rally, but the CP’s own speaker, Angela Davis, conveniently omitted it from her speech. It wasn’t the only thing she omitted. Here was an opportunity for the CP, speaking before a mass anti-imperialist audience, to put forward its general political line. But in the face of the genuine militancy of the occasion, they were not able to do so. Everyone knows, for instance, that the CP thinks the question of U.S.-Soviet detente is the principal political question of our time. Undoubtedly recognizing that such an assertion would fly in the face of the fighting mood of this rally, Davis never brought it up.
Make no mistake. Revisionism remains the chief danger within the working-class movement. But we should not overestimate its strength. When confronted in the course of genuine struggle, it can be isolated and exposed.
Illusions about revisionism will continue to exist in the anti-imperialist movement and in the workers’ movement for some time to come. So long as its class base remains intact, revisionism will continue to regenerate itself in the ranks of the left.
But considering the history of the U.S. left, the organizational experience of the CP, its international ties and access to resources, one can say that it did not make a very good showing at the Solidarity Day rally. True, many in the audience expressed their respect for Angela Davis, but this was for one who personally stood up against the ruling class and has become a symbol of militant resistance, not for her party.
If the rally demonstrated the deepening weaknesses of the CP, it also brought out the dangers of ultra-“leftism.” This was revealed in a variety of ways, from those left organizations which either boycotted the action or gave it relatively lukewarm support at a very late stage to groups whose “critical support” seemed to consist of considerable criticism and very little support.
El Comite, a Puerto Rican independence organization, attacked what it called “the revisionist-liberal perspective that is predominant” among the speakers for the rally–an advance judgment that will undoubtedly come as a surprise to most of those who actually attended the event.
After exchanges of letters and criticisms, El Comite prepared a 24-page pamphlet on the question of “Puerto Ricans and Proletarian Internationalism” which it distributed at the tally. On the first page of this document, El Comite says: “The positive aspects of the activity are overwhelmed by the nature and character of the ideological concepts that dominate the activity, conceptions of solidarity which attack the essence of Marxism-Leninism.” They cite, as evidence, the slogan, “A Bicentennial Without Colonies” which had been put forward by the Solidarity Committee.
But this judgment is turning reality upside down. The fact is that the rally, far from being dominated by liberal ideology, actually went far beyond the concededly reformist slogan of “A Bicentennial Without Colonies” and was characterized by an advanced anti-imperialist consciousness that was the dominant theme both from the speakers’ platform and in the audience. El Comite correctly criticizes some of the views put forward by the Puerto Rican Socialist party (PSP), especially the notion that the solidarity movement will help unify the U.S. left. The tendency to make “left unity” a principal aim of the action was indeed present–not only with PSP but among others in the support committee. But the fact is that this tendency, too, was defeated and this view was never consolidated within the Solidarity Committee. (“Left unity” in this case is an unprincipled unity that would, in effect, liquidate the struggle against opportunism and be purely pragmatic. In the long run, this “unity” could not last and would prove to be self-defeating as well as detrimental to the struggle for Puerto Rican independence itself.)
Actually, El Comite has taken one of the strengths of the rally–its ability to forge a united front on the basis of a very advanced level of anti-imperialist consciousness–and described it as a weakness. Such a judgment is a parody of Marxism-Leninism.
Another example of left sectarianism was the ill-advised speech by Jerry Tung of the Asian Coalition. Tung made an attack on Soviet social imperialism the main aspect of his speech. The negative response of the audience–which certainly could have been anticipated–obliterated the content of his remarks and provided the revisionists with one of the few moments in the proceedings when they could win the support of those who had come to fight imperialism.
Actually, most of the audience sat silent when Tung first pointed out the danger represented by Soviet social imperialism. The few boos that greeted him clearly came from CP supporters. But when he persisted and when it became clear that this was the main point of his speech, a majority of the audience saw his actions as divisive.
Does this mean that revisionism should not be attacked under such circumstances? Not at all. In fact, a rally of this kind offers a perfect opportunity to expose the essence of revisionism which at least two speakers did with a measure of effectiveness. But to make a political fetish out of a phrase, which in effect is what Tung did, is to honor the form but not necessarily the content of the struggle against revisionism.
The Solidarity Day event had its shortcomings. While the speech of Angela Davis revealed the essential ideological bankruptcy of the CP in not even daring to put its political line forward, she nevertheless continues to provide the revisionists with a useful cover of symbolic Black militancy. The absence of any trade union figures was a pathetic commentary on the labor movement in general and on some of those “progressive” leaders such as David Livingston of District 65 who was Johnny-on-the-spot when the Zionists rallied in front, of the UN but was nowhere to be found on the question of Puerto Rican independence. The contribution made by PSP general secretary Juan Mari Bras was, in the main, a good one, but his belabored defense of the “Bicentennial without colonies” slogan only helped to underscore the weakness of the slogan in the first place.
One could cite other weaknesses as well. But the principal aspect of the rally was so positive as to dwarf some of these other matters by comparison. Especially significant was the high political level of the audience who obviously listened perceptively to what was being said and consistently demonstrated an advanced anti-imperialist consciousness.
For Marxist-Leninists this may well be the most significant fact of all.