First Published: Resistencia, Vol. 7, No. 7, September 1976
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.
PRRWO-RWL are always bragging that they carry out polemics in the communist movement. For them polemics is more like an obsession, another lie which they repeat to themselves, dreaming that it will become a reality. But reality cannot be covered by lies. These neo-trotskyites long ago ceased to wage polemics based on line and principles. Now all they do is name-calling, falsifying facts, openly lying, etc. A good example of what we are pointing out is the way in which these neo-trotskyites have developed their so-called “polemics” against our organization. Especially if we contrast their “polemics” , in form and in content, with the polemics we have been developing in the last 3 issues of this newspaper against their ultra-“leftist” cretinism.
PRRWO-RWL beat themselves on the chest saying:
One of the hallmarks of the revolutionary wing is to consistently take all shades of differences, all struggles over line back to the two-line struggle on the central task... Palante Vol. 6 #6 p. 3
And again they beat themselves on the chest:
The revolutionary wing has come to the head of the movement, is determining its character, has continuity with the past, are the only forces carrying out real polemics. .. Palante Vol. 6 # 8 p. 5
Let’s see then their “real polemics”. In the March edition of Palante (#5) PRRWO declared that Resistencia Puertorriquena (LPR) was “Menshevik.” True to their style their proof was simply their word. They are “Mensheviks because we say so and period.” (Remember the Revolutionary Bloc who was supposed to be genuine and part of the wing because PRRWO said so?) In that issue they assured us that they would be polemizing with Resistencia in the future.
In the next issue the ”real polemics” went full-steam:
We must take the lead in struggling against menshevism ... against the fruit flies of the movement like IWK, CAP, Resistencia, who tail anyone that seems to be on the rise and where their careers can be best insured. Palante, Vol. 6 #6 p. 3
Some polemic!!! The two line struggle has indeed been taken to the highest level of deepness of which they are capable. Not even a fruit fly can be so foolish as to call this “line struggle”. But there is more.
In the next issue the “fruit flyes” become “loyal lackeys of the bourgeoisie.” (Palante vol. 6 #7 p. l) Three months had elapsed since the promised “polemics” and up to the moment not even a commentary that could resemble line struggle.
Meanwhile in Resistencia we were waging a struggle against the neo-trotskyite line of PRRWO-RWL.
In our May edition we had pointed out the unities that had existed up to that moment as well as the differences that existed in line between both organizations. In that issue we criticised the line on “the party is the central and only task, that propaganda is the principal and only form of activity, the equivalence of the two tactical tasks, that we have to work only with the advanced, etc. Specifically we developed a polemic on their eclectic views on uniting M-Ls and winning the advanced to communism which held neither as primary. (See Resistencia vol.7 #5)
In the next issue we polemized on their incorrect line on the relationship between propaganda and agitation, on the relation between theory and practice (See Resistencia vol. 7 #6) They have not said a word in relation to our line in these questions. Our serious scientific analysis of their neo-trotskyite line they can only answer with insults , falsification of history, demagoguery. So they come out in their next issue with:
Only one year ago, Resistencia was “not sure” whether or not capitalism had been restored in the Soviet Union. Palante vol. 6 #8 p. 16
Even if this were true – which is not as we will show – that a year ago we were not sure on this question, what would this prove? Are we to base today’s polemics with yesterday’s positions? That is demagoguery. PRRWO is well aware that our position on Angola, on the analysis of the Havana Conference, show clearly our opposition to Soviet social imperialism. So they attempt a “fast ball” talking about one year ago. They hope to plant some doubts on the organization in some comrades that have entered in contact with the organization after that date. But that shot will backfire. Examine the waverings in PRRWO’s line in the last year. Remember the teachers strike and organization is key?
Our position on Soviet social imperialism dates from not “only a year ago”. On November 1972 we circulated a flyer signed also by the Communist League which stated:
There are two imperialist superpowers which have made a temporary agreement to divide the world among themselves: the imperialist U.S. and the social-imperialist Soviet Union (a social-imperialist speaks of socialism to cover its imperialist deeds). Each one has its colonies.
Is this a loss of memory in PRRWO?
Let’s see if PRRWO has better memory in the next distortion:
It was Resistencia who less than two years ago was propagating that they were the voice of the Puerto Rican national minority. Palante vol. 6 #8 p. 16
Again going back two years? What of today’s line? That is the one you have to combat and defeat if you are one thousandth of the Bolsheviks you claim you are. Also, again you are lying. It is true, and not two years ago, but up to December 1975, we identified our newspaper with “voice of the Puerto Rican national minority.” It is also true that in January 1976 – only a fruit fly mind can forget that it was only 8 months ago – we pointed out: “In brief, we consider that the heading “Voice of the Puerto Rican National Minority in the U. S.” has fully accomplished its task, and that because it now has become an obstacle to the building of the multinational communist party, as it does not help to unite Marxist-Leninists or to win the advanced to communism, we have decided to discard it.” Resistencia vol. 7 #1 p. 6 We believe that the examples cited, plus the reading of Palante and RESISTENCIA can leave no doubt as to who are waging serious ideological struggle and who have turned to insults, phrasemongering, distortions and plain lies to cover for their bankrupt lines.