First Published: Obreros En Marcha, Vol. 1, No. 7, June 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.
In the last issue of Obreros En Marcha we reprinted excerpts from the MSP (Popular Socialist Movement) Congress which was held in November, 1974 in Puerto Rico. In this issue we reprint a sinthesis of the internal ideological struggles prior to MSP’s Congress, in particular the sinthesis brings forth the struggles against the economists and petty-bourgeois elements within the MSP. Their defeat represents a victory for Marxist-Leninists in Puerto Rico and as consequence a victory for its working class. Further, the results of these intense struggles brought further clarity to the fundamental question of Tactic and Strategy for the Puerto Rican revolution and have firmly established the MSP as a leading organization within the national liberation movement.
* * *
On August 18, I974 a group of comrades, including part of the MSP leadership, presented their resignation to the membership in a seminar called to discuss the strategy and tactics our organization should adopt. The main and sole reason for this resignation was this: they were not in agreement with the existing majority consensus with regard to strategy and tactics of taking power in Puerto Rico. With the departure of these comrades a purification process was realized which strengthened our organization even more and destroyed the metaphysical vision of some who claimed the MSP was unable to purge itself. What were some of the existing differences? How were they expressed in practice? What was the make up of these differences? We will try and answer these questions.
The first thing which must be clarified is that up until 8/18/74 two tactical-strategic conceptions co-existed in MSP. Two contradictory conceptions which had to culminate in the elimination of one.
The basic characteristic of the defeated conception was: the need to develop the native forces of production in Puerto Rico as the base for the objective conditions of revolution in Puerto Rico. They put forward that the colonial dependence of the nation, where what is produced is only one link or a small wheel in the system of gears whose remaining parts are out of control – even potentially that of the working class – made it absolutely necessary to develop a struggle which would put the working class in a stronger position, decreasing such a dependence. That struggle was to develop the native forces of production.
What was behind this proposal was a particular understanding of the dialectics and of the course of history of society. The basis of this idea of native forces of production was a mechanical conception of the historical development of humanity. They pointed out:
Marx demonstrated that in the ultimate instance, the revolution is the product of the contradiction between the production forces and the production relations in a determined society. From this it is inferred that a class can only take power if before hand it has created, and because of this, represents the new forces of production which are its conditions for existence and where the old social relations of production impede this development. In this way the bourgeoisie as representative of the new capitalist forces of production need to abolish feudalism and can do so because it has already created the material conditions for its existence, that is, the capitalist forces of production. In the case of the proletarian revolution the socialist revolution, it is similar in that the proletariat, being the one who works and produces, has created the same conditions of its existence but the capitalist relations impede its development and keep it tied down.
This must be clarified.
It is totally correct that when the bourgeoisie came to power some capitalist forces of production had already developed. Since the 12th century, with the growth of cities, the beginnings of the development of a new class, the bourgeoisie are felt in opposition to the feudal class.
With the expansion of the cities and commercial growth of this epoch, the possibilities of expansion became more evident. Circulation of money as a means of payment increases. The feudal lords eliminate payment in kind (crops, cattle, wines, etc.) and begin to demand rent in cash. With this they began to obtain the luxurious manufactured goods of that period. Many serfs, after seeing their surplus, acquired some money which gradually allowed them to free themselves from the feudal charges and dedicate themselves to other more productive activities. The skillful artisans and the successful merchants begin to have greater economic importance.
After the discovery of America, something occurred which led to the downfall of the noble landowners. The large quantity of metals which flooded Europe in the 16th century had a two-fold effect: gold was devalued and an inflationary movement developed. Because the rent of the feudal lord was fixed, he couldn’t survive, in many cases, the rise in prices. In many areas the inconsistency in status was noted. Count X, of such and such a lace, nephew of Lord X, a lot of lineage and status, but submerged in poverty. The peasantry became poorer each day while the merchants and artisans increased their accumulation of riches.
With the development of manufacture the bourgeoisie relations of production continue to develop. In France, for example, the “unity” between the new relations and the aristocratic regime was indefensible. When King Louis XV said: “After me, the flood,” it reflected an evident reality. Some forces which were fighting to impose themselves had arisen. And the flood broke out in 1789. The bourgeois revolution against the clergy and the landowners. In effect, when, the Jacobinians declared the definite abolition of feudalism in 1793, they eliminated all obstruction to the development of the bourgeoisie in order to facilitate said development. Being such, when this new class takes political power, it does so to sweep away the judicial system and the obstacles that the already obsolete aristocratic regime represented.
But if this was the case of the bourgeoisie in playing its revolutionary role, it cannot be deduced, lest the danger of being mechanical, that the proletariat revolution had to follow the same course. Precisely, in the case of the socialist revolution, it is not treated in the “same manner.” It is completely different.
With the development of the productive forces in the capitalist system, the production process becomes more and more social. In a determined capitalist society there is a close relationship in the whole productive apparatus. The development of those productive forces conflicts with the bourgeois relations of production which are based on individual appropriations of the means of production. The socialist revolution has as an objective the destruction of those bourgeois relations: destroy the private appropriation of the means of production.
If in the feudal society, capitalist relations of production arose before the bourgeoisie took political power, to wait for the rise of socialist relations of production in bourgeois society is absurd. What is at question is the resolution of the fundamental problem of all revolutions: the problem of power. Only by the proletariat taking political power can socialist relations of production be established and an even bigger contribution to the development of the forces of production. First the political power must be taken in order to then establish socialist relations of production.
Taking off from the basic characteristic of their strategic-tactical conception – the development of the native forces of production as a condition for the proletarian revolution – they, the opposition, elaborated a statement based on these premises: “The problem – they claim – is that within the system of capitalism in Puerto Rico, the development of the forces of production is only possible by those who have capital... “What then should be the role of MSP? What was presented in respect to this?” What we propose – they answered – is that our organization stimulate through fronts, unions, trade unions, etc, the industrial development, especially agriculture, in this country on a state property or cooperative basis.How could this be achieved? By denouncing colonialism which permits Puerto Rico to be a captive market and by demanding greater autonomy through pressuring the Ad Hoc Committee. Also creating consumer cooperatives, and trying to renovate agriculture in the rural areas by establishing cooperatives for small farmers... Besides all this, this work of creating cooperatives would also serve as a collective experience of involvement and effort. These were the fundamental tasks which were assigned to the movement from their tactical-strategic conception.
But it did not remain here. As a direct result of such an interpretation was the economist sequal translated into political action. They pointed out:
One point we shouldn’t lose sight of is that the economic crisis being experienced now will continue worsening and effects of this other than rising prices (substantial enough) will also be manifested through a high percentage of unemployment and scarcity of important items of consumption. We should contribute to the growth and deepening of this crisis through encouraging the workers’ struggle for higher salaries; in this manner the workers movement (organized or not) will pressure the system with demands which cannot be fulfilled. In the short run, the capitalists will not be able to realize the necessary adjustments to curtail the effect of the workers demands through automation and the result will be a sharpening of the crisis. Now, in worsening the crisis, there should be a purpose and in the case of the workers’ movement it should be to obtain an effective organization which flows from certain interests and the democratic struggles (to compensate for the deterioration of the cost of living due to the rising prices) and which will pass on to higher forms of struggle that is towards the political struggle.
It is important to point out two things here. Both represent the economists’ view of struggle. The first couldn’t be more significant. It deals with nothing more or less than the growth and deepening of the crisis being experienced by the colonial-capitalist system in Puerto Rico through the development of the “workers’ struggles for higher salaries”. Let us examine this carefully.
In the capitalist government, the ruling class very often gives economic concessions for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the social struggles which may threaten the economic and political stability of said class. The economic gains are an important pillar for the improvement of living conditions of the oppressed classes. But to propose that only through struggle for better salaries (and not even a word of unionization, medical services, education) will the crisis be sharpened, is to align oneself with the interests of the bourgeoisie.
The crisis is not sharpened through demanding better salaries. This is only one of the aspects but by no means the only or the most fundamental. The crisis is sharpened through politization emanating from immediate interests and developing a prolonged war which will attack the nerve points of the capitalist system and contribute to the weakening of the bourgeois state. To propose that this sharpening will come as a result of the salary increases alone is pure economism raised to the nth degree.
Let us examine the 2nd point. It is proposed that the sharpening of the crisis through salary increases should have a purpose. This “should be to obtain an effective organization (of workers) which flows from certain interests and democratic struggles... and which will pass on to high forms of struggle, that is, towards the political struggle.”
The workers movement will change from the economic to political struggle. Nothing is stated about the function of MSP in that process or the role it should play. They forgot one fundamental and elementary point of Marxism. The economic struggle does not change to the political struggle.
The economic struggle merely ’brings home’ to the workers questions concerning the attitude of the government towards the working class. Consequently, however, much we may try to ’lend the economic struggle itself a political character’ we shall never be able to develop political consciousness of the workers (to the level of Social-Democratic political consciousness) by keeping within the framework of the economic struggle, for mat framework is too narrow. LENIN, WHAT’S TO BE DONE
The economic struggle does not by itself become political struggle. It must be transformed through a Marxist-Leninist orientation to the workers struggle. To propose something else, to propose that the economic struggle must be changed to a political struggle without determining precisely how this will be done, is to negate the need for a vanguard party. And this has been overcome by Leninism for a while now.
The economic struggle is transformed to a political struggle through political denunciation/through the diffusion of Marxism-Leninism in the hearts of the working class, through intense politization which will make clear the fact that the struggle is not only against one boss in particular, but against the bourgeoisie in general. It is not only a fight for economic gains, but for political power, keeping in mind that “the fundamental economic interest of the proletariat can only be satisfied through a political revolution which will replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie for the dictatorship of the proletariat”.
Only with the completion of this can the class consciousness of the workers be raised and converted from the economic to the political struggles. But in this one has to be clear and speak clearly. It is not about “changing”. It is about being transformed.
The comrades who resigned did not understand this and if they did, they did not show it.
Combined with the above was their understanding of the nature of the state. Their discussions based on incorrect theoretical premises led them to profound doubts as to which was the dominant characteristic of the bourgeoisie state in Puerto Rico: benefactor or repressive. They stated:
It is necessary to be clear on the consequences of the most recent occurrences, for example the demands formulated by the party in power for the Ad Hoc Committee. (This committee instituted by the U.S. government is supposed to present ’new alternatives’ to the present status of Puerto Rico–ed.) Once achieved, are these demands geared to facilitate the mediator function of the state? On the other hand, what implication does the judicial, electoral or penal reform have? Are they methods of repression because the state has already failed in its mediating role or on the contrary are they means towards facilitating said function? We must also consider the role played by me federal funds invested in ’public welfare’ programs, such as maintenance and food stamps: methods of repression or of mediation? And we should ask ourselves me same abput the recent wave of nationalization (sugar refineries, telephone, shipping); about the new education orientation towards automation about the plans of economic development based on the industry of big capital investments and little manual labor. With a scientific and conscientious analysis of these elements we can clarify the true nature of the state in Puerto Rico today and be able to point out if it is predominantly fascistic or benefactor.
The state, as an instrument of domination of one class over another has repression as a basic characteristic, independent of the form used. Food stamps can’t be seen as an exclusive quality of the benefactor state but rather as an urgent response of the government to deal with the grave economic crisis, the country is going through. At no time can we overlook the repressive methods being simultaneously enforced. Methods which are based in the process of consolidation of the state as a guarantee to the large capital investment needed for heavy industry to be established in Puerto Rico.
Directly related to their conception of the state being fundamentally a benefactor was their interpretation of armed struggle. They did what the traditional communist parties of Europe and Latin America do.
Because the main characteristic of the state is not repressive then why develop the armed struggle? That would be adventurism, narrow political vision. What must be done is to give an ideological substitute to that of armed struggle, to justify its “irrelevance” at the present moment and give it the chance to disappear from the political work until the right conditions exist. When the conditions are ripe (without saying what will make them so) ah! then its ok. It isn’t that the armed struggle is negated. How can we deny that? No! It’s just that right now it’s not good. The time is not right. And what will make the time right? Economic struggles and the development of the productive forces.
Let’s examine once more their conception of struggle in their most brilliant synthesis. “It is not a question of believing that little by little through reforms alone will socialism succeed. The bourgeoisie will not play a spectator role in the reform process leading to its own disappearance. Obviously they are going to oppose this with all the means in their reach. Whoever involves themselves in this type of struggle must understand, if they are socialist and want to change the system, that eventually an armed confrontation will come about between those who, by necessity demand new relations of production and those who wish to remain consecrating their privileges.” (Really, it will not just come. The function of the party is to make it happen; it is not to sit and wait for it.) “But for this, some objective and subjective basis must be set which in our opinion, have not yet been realized in Puerto Rico. We believe that those bases will be established in the stage of struggle for independence and socialism through the economic struggle leading to the development of the autonomous productive forces.”
Nothing could be more clear.
But we understood and understand something different. In Puerto Rico it is necessary to develop a protracted war which will continue weakening the capitalist state in its nerve centers. For that the workers’ struggles must be developed as well as the military struggle. This must be begun now. Not in stages per se, but in an inter-related dialectical process. We don’t give to the armed struggle neither ideological substitutes nor fellowships. We understand that it is the fundamental method of struggle and armed struggle must be kept in mind at all times.
As final points characterizing the comrades’ tactical-strategic conceptions, there was their position on cadre policy and their programmatic definition of MSP.
In reference to cadre policy they felt that the organization should not implement one. They argued that flexible criteria should be maintained for the militants of the organization. But we believe something else.
Because our objective is to contribute to the building of a true communist party in Puerto Rico, it is imperative to implement cadre policy, to create in practice, the revolutionaries who lead and will continue to lead and direct the proletariat revolution in this country. For this we must be rigorous in seeing the diverse particularities and maintaining uniform criteria for judging our militants.
In the same manner membership qualifications must be defined. Not just anyone who wants to can join MSP. Membership must be controlled through specific methods which would guarantee correct methods of work in MSP. These comrades did not understand this as such.
In reference to the programmatic definition of the organization, they claimed it was not important. The priority was to consolidate MSP through practical tasks. To dedicate ourselves to studying to clarify all or at least as many questions as possible, and then define ourselves. They forgot that the practical work is not manufactured out of thin air.
They forgot that strategic plans were necessary to orient our political work.
And they forgot one other thing: that all the points and the analysis that they put forth implied a particular tactical-strategic conception for the development of political work. The non-definition which they avoided was precisely its definition. The definition of the non-definition. They failed.
With the success of a clear strategic line, MSP has set down some firm bases to effectively contribute to the construction of the Communist Party in Puerto Rico. On August 18th, one particular process was culminated and another initiated. When these comrades left, the organization was rid of a metaphysical vision which some could manifest principledly. It was a real success and a victory which brought us closer to our objectives. We formed MSP with a particular understanding of struggle. We knew that the purge had to be done and we did what was needed.
On August 18th, there was an end to the intense ideological debate based on different conceptions of struggle which were manifested in two tactics and strategies for MSP. At the same time some solid specifics were laid down for the implementation of effective political work in the heart of the Puerto Rican working class as well as a clear line in reference to the taking of political power in Puerto Rico.