First Published: Obreros En Marcha, Vol. 1, No. 6, May 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.
In November of 1974 the Movimiento Socialists Popular –MSP– (Popular Socialist Movement) held its first Congress in Puerto Rico. This event culminated a process which began soon after the 1972 elections in Puerto Rico when a sector of the Pro-Independence Party (PIP) left that organization putting forth, among other tasks: the need of seriously studying the concrete reality of Puerto Rico, the need of the independence movement integrating itself to the working class, and the organized, conscious study of Marxism-Leninism.
The MSP whose Secretary General, Luis Angel Torres, is one of three pro-independence legislators in Puerto Rico (Ruben Berrios of PIP and Carlos Galliza now with PSP are the others), has since its formation developed as a significant force within the National Liberation Movement of Puerto Rico. With this issue of Obreros en Marcha we begin a series of articles and excerpts taken from the MSP publication El Militante, these articles express fundamental aspects of MSP ideological formulations. In reprinting these articles we are attempting to bring a better understanding to present struggles presently taking place within the National Liberation Movement in Puerto Rico as well as the different political formations that represent its most advanced sectors.
Last November MSP held its first Congress. At that time the programmatic bases necessary to orient our political line were agreed upon as were the revolutionary conceptions of tactics and strategy needed to lead the Puerto Rican struggle. This event is of the utmost importance for the development of the revolutionary struggle in Puerto Rico. The Congress has a two fold significance. On the one hand’, it represents the culmination of intense ideological struggle as well as defining concrete bases around which political work will be realized. On the other hand, and as result of the above it represents the bankruptcy of the metaphysical conceptions put forth by an specific sector of the Puerto Rican left in reference to the development of the movement and the creation of a Communist Party in Puerto Rico. Each of these aspects should be correctly analyzed in order to understand the present historical role of the MSP and its role in the struggle for independence and socialism.
Traditionally the national liberation struggle of Puerto Rico has been characterized by the non-existence of a Marxist-Leninist vanguard able to give political direction to the revolutionary process and to the working class. On the contrary, the liberation struggle has been led and directed by sectors of the petty bourgeoisie who have attempted to impose their own particular conceptions upon the development of effective political work within the working class. These conceptions have manifested themselves in two tendencies representing various sectors of the petty bourgeoisie within the Puerto Rican left. In the first place PIP, the Pro-Independence Party, characterized by its pacifism, its vicious anti-communism and its electoral vision as mechanism to achieve independence. This conception of taking over the state is based on the electoral process as an exclusive means of struggle. They support in words only the workers struggles and in theory and practice they oppose all forms of armed struggle. Raising the banner of “militant pacifism” and using the bourgeoisie’s fears of communism to attract broad sectors of the petty bourgeoisie, the Pro-Independence Party (PIP), will attempt to fool the working class by downgrading its political development. In essence, lying behind these characteristics is the ambition of creating a bourgeois Republic in which the petty bourgeoisie would be able to better its economic conditions and keeping the working claass under conditions of oppression. The second tendency represents the radicalized sectors of the petty bourgeoisie attempting to lead the working class in order to achieve political power. Theoretically they support armed struggle and are not anti-communists. On practical levels their actions deny the fundamental Marxist principles and their support of armed actions is characterized by opportunism in that they support all forms of armed actions without analyzing their political relevance or irrelevancies. As a result, the strategical interests of the revolutionary struggle are sacrificed for the immediate interests of the party. Their illusions of Marxism-Leninism is confronted by their sectarian reality, by their lack of clear strategical concepts of struggle and the non-existence of a high level of political development. Within their ranks there are various tendencies that have compromised with the ambiguity of “using all methods of struggle with our capabilities” without specifying those which are fundamental and those which are not. This tendency is represented by the PSP, whose tactics and strategies differ from those held by PIP. Their interpretations are based on directing all their organizational efforts toward the objective of an insurrection in Puerto Rico. Such conception implies the strengthening of a legal organizational apparatus which passes itself as “the vanguard of the working class” but not providing political direction without developing work which would raise class consciousness, supporting in moments of confrontations all armed actions even when these actions may be incorrect and may not put forward any political objective. In short, to consolidate a structure whereby at a determined moment the call for insurrection will be given and the people will rise up in arms in direct confrontation in order to overthrow US imperialism, fn this way, and following this conception, in one shot the people will destroy the state apparatus. During the process of articulating this conception the petty bourgeoisie creates illusions, personal wishes are confused with objective reality. The level of class consciousness among workers is pretended to be raised by bureacratically controlling labor leaders, and they believe class consciousness is being raised. All of the workers struggles are supported, pickets, rallies, marches etc. but there is no continuity of true political work. The so-called vanguard tails behind workers struggles and does nothing to lead the working class toward taking political power but merely leads it on economic demands.
Another common manifestation of these two tendencies is the fact that there is no cadre policy which would build the true political cadre who would develop effective organizing among the masses and would give political leadership to these. Within the first tendency there is room for everyone: from religious to anarchists. The same holds true for the second. The important thing is to do the tasks assigned by the party even when there is no clarity as to the objectives of these tasks. The only requisite is to be a “political athlete” not a revolutionary cadre.
In total opposition to the above, the MSP Congress pointed out the tactical and strategical bases which apply to the objective conditions of Puerto Rico. We understand that in so doing we have taken a step forward in the contribution to the formation of a genuine Marxist-Leninist Party in Puerto Rico.
The present situation demand that our political work contribute to the creation of Communist Party that would develop the struggle on two levels, related and complementing each other. First, we must intensify our work among the working class having as objective the political development and organization of broad sectors of workers and the recruitment of its most advanced members. The political development must have as its particular objective not only the struggle for economic demands but also the total social transformation of Puerto Rico. The second level is the development of consciousness in the heart of the people around the fundamental need of armed struggle as a form which will contribute the the weakening of the bourgeois state in Puerto Rico. It is necessary to interrelate these two levels. One cannot be isolated from the other. To organize for only better economic conditions is reformism. Armed actions by themselves constitute adventurerism. It’s necessary to heighten the political development of the working class and as part of this process is necessary to develop armed actions which will move forward the revolutionary objectives of the working class.
This tactical strategical conception has fundamental differences with the insurrectionalists. The insurrection puts forth a war of positions: two armies confront each other at a determined moment and the one with the greater organizational and military strength will be victorious. This shows the limitations of time in the insurrectionalist strategy. It must be questioned if in Puerto Rico, with highways criss-crossing the island, with North American military bases in our soil, with highly technified repressive agencies etc. if an insurrection here would be successful. We don’t think so. We put forth the need of developing consciousness as to the importance of a prolonged war as fundamental method of struggle for the proletarian revolution. It is not about having an army of robots in reserve to carry out military actions at a determined moment. It is about developing consciousness in terms of the need of continuously harassing the enemy within the context of political struggle as developed by the proletariat. In response to the ambiguities of “all methods of struggle” we put forth the need of defining a fundamental method: this method is armed struggle as characterized by the prolonged war. As such, the systematic process could lead to negotiations (as in Algeria and Vietnam) or to insurrection (as in China). The particular character acquired will depend on the particular conditions. But, if this was to result in an insurrection this would be product of conscious and planned armed struggle not an spontaneous occurrance. To insist in believing otherwise would be to fill hospitals, prisons and cemeteries, but it would not lead to taking over the state.
As part of this tactical-strategical conception is necessary to implement an effective Cadre Policy that would guarantee the solid foundations that would allow for our functioning under any circumstances.