First Published: The Organizer, Vol. 3, No. 3, April-May 1977.
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.
Independence for Puerto Rico is a question of special importance for the U.S. working class. This is not just because of the growing strength of the independence movement on the island, nor because of the recent moves in the direction of the forceable annexation of Puerto Rico as a state following the discovery of rich oil deposits on its shores. While these two facts do make the question more immediate, they do not fundamentally alter its character. Independence for Puerto Rico is of special significance because it is U. S. imperialism’s foremost colonial possession.
It is in this context that the recent developments at the second national convention of the Puerto Rico Solidarity Committee (PRSC) must be viewed. As the most prominent, broad-based organization which is addressing the question of building solidarity with the independence movement, the PRSC takes on a significance far beyond its twenty chapters and 400 members.
The convention was well attended by a relatively broad and diverse number of organizations and individuals. Particularly important were the representatives from Puerto Rico. The Frente Revolucionario Anti-lmperialista, the Movimiento Popular Socialista, the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican Socialist Party were all represented; together these forces make up a significant section of the independence movement.
Three central questions were the focus of debate at the convention. First was the question of the strategic role of the U. S. working class. The San Francisco chapter and other forces associated with Prairie Fire politics opposed the formulation that the proletariat was the “most reliable ally” of the Puerto Rican people in their struggle for independence. Chauvinistically implying that the working class is exclusively white and male, these delegates opposed singling out those who provide the basis for the great bulk of imperialism’s profits as central to the future of a durable solidarity movement.
A second question was the nature of imperialism itself. Here again the San Francisco chapter advanced an analysis of the nature of imperialism which totally ignored its economic essence–monopoly capitalism. In their formulation, the twin pillars of imperialism were racism and sexism – both divorced from their roots in the super-exploitation of oppressed nationalities and women. This conception of imperialism which sees only the superstructure but ignores the economic base, could only have fed illusions that imperialism was a ’policy’ and not a socioeconomic system.
The third contested question – and the one the significance of which was probably the least understood – was the question of what stand the PRSC should take on the question of armed struggle. An opportunist alliance of the San Francisco delegates, the Sojourner Truth Organization and a group surrounding Jose Lopez, a leader of the Committee to Free the Five Puerto Rican Nationalist Prisoners (the last two were mainly observers and formed the so-called March 1st Bloc) attempted to win the conference to an endorsement of armed struggle “in the forms which it is actually occurring, small and episodic actions rather than mass assaults.” Such a formulation would have endorsed the “armed struggle” of such organizations as the FALN, which, owing to the timing and targeting of its bombings, is strongly suspected of having ties to the CIA.
The San Francisco chapter, however, was decisively defeated on all three of these vital questions by a solid 2-1 vote. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the majority would have been so large on the question of armed struggle, if it had not been for the timely intervention by Federico Lora of El Comite-MINP. In a passionate and sobering speech, Comrade Lora pointed out the dangers of playing with the question of armed struggle. He implicitly criticized the manifest chauvinism of the predominantly white and untested delegates ’endorsing’ armed actions, when the mere organization of trade unions by the workers of Puerto Rico have called forth such vicious and brutal repression.
Following the leadership of the representative of the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Front of Puerto Rico, Luis Angel Torres, the convention adopted an amendment which stated “any movement of solidarity with Puerto Rico must take into consideration the inevitable use of armed struggle as a fundamental aspect of struggle against U.S. imperialist domination.”
While the resolution of the convention on the central political questions was indeed positive and the PRSC took a number of political steps forward, particularly in recognizing the importance of the Puerto Rican people in the U. S., the real work remains to be accomplished. And the task of making concrete the recognition of the central role of the U.S. working class, is perhaps, the greatest test of all.
For the PRSC, despite many positive aspects, remains an organization largely white and petty-bourgeois in composition and politically isolated from the working class. If it is ever to become a truly “mass” solidarity organization and consequently an effective one, it will have to seek out the means to make the issue of independence for Puerto Rico a central component of the proletariat’s struggle against imperialism in the U.S.