U.S. Threats Over Crackdown on Counterrevolutionaries
Liberals, Reformists Join Imperialist Hue and Cry
MAY 17 – For the past two months, there has been a dramatic increase in U.S. provocations and threats against Cuba. A rash of hijackings is followed by an outcry over Cuba’s repression of counterrevolutionary plotters. Fantastical charges of Cuban “biological warfare” are resuscitated. Last week the U.S. expelled 14 Cuban diplomats; next week Bush is scheduled to announce drastic new measures tightening the travel ban and economic blockade. This is not just stepped-up harassment, it’s preparation for war: Washington is itching to give Cuba the “Iraq treatment.” The imperialist warmongers must be defeated, and it will take class war to do it.
Cuban youth protest invasion of Iraq outside U.S. Interests Section in Havana, 22 March 2003. (Photo: Cristóbal Herrera/AP)
For the Bush regime, the war didn’t end with the U.S. taking of
Baghdad. Now they want to “take back” Havana. For the last four decades,
American rulers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have shown their unrelenting
hostility to the Cuban Revolution, seeing its very existence as a direct
threat to U.S. domination of Latin America. The purpose of the vicious 40-year-old
U.S. embargo, which has cost more than $70 billion in lost trade, has been
to strangle the rebel Caribbean island economically. But the Yankee imperialists
have manifestly failed in their attempt to bully and starve the Cuban people
Now the White House and Pentagon are gearing up for more “robust”
action against Havana. The escalation of imperialist hounding of Cuba is
directly tied to the invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq. And while
the Bush gang gnashes its teeth over the Castro regime’s suppression of counterrevolutionary
plotters, a layer of liberals and left intellectuals in the U.S. and Europe
have been bleating over repression in Cuba. This hue and cry demonstrates
that their objections to the Iraq invasion were only tactical: they want
a “soft” version of imperialist domination – in the Cuban case, a kind of
It is precisely to this layer that Fidel Castro has appealed over
the years in pursuing the pipe dream of “peaceful coexistence” with imperialism.
But as the war hawks in Washington rampage, the pacifist doves have taken
flight. The fickle liberal bourgeois “friends of Cuba” are friends no longer.
Various reformist leftists and Latin American nationalists have responded
by calling for support for Cuba’s sovereignty and right to self-determination.
Posing the issue in purely “democratic” terms misses that what is at stake
is the fate of revolutionary gains, however bureaucratically deformed.
What is posed here is not just intensified U.S. hostility but a
very real threat of war on Cuba. Many in the current administration in Washington
would make the overthrow of “Castro’s Cuba” the centerpiece of a second
Bush term. Attempts to conciliate them are illusory. Genuine communists
call for all-out defense of Cuba against counterrevolution from without
and within. Trotskyists fight to smash the imperialist stranglehold by international
socialist revolution throughout Latin America and extending into what José
Martí called the “belly of the beast,” the heartland of Yankee imperialism.
Escalation of U.S.
The current uproar began with a reevaluation of Washington’s Cuba
policy undertaken by the White House a year ago. The point man was Otto
Reich, an ultra-rightist Cuban exile who in the 1980s was in charge of stonewalling
Congress over the Reagan administration’s “contra” war against Sandinista
Nicaragua. Last year Reich was caught conspiring with Venezuelan contras
in the failed coup against bourgeois nationalist colonel Hugo Chávez.
In their policy review, Bush & Co. decided to push for a “transition
to democracy” in Cuba. These are code words for counterrevolution. What they
mean by democracy is the dictatorship of capitalism; their talk of freedom
means “free markets” and enslaved workers.
One result of the policy shift has been to sharply restrict Cuban
immigration to the U.S. Although Washington agreed with Havana in 1994 to
accept 20,000 Cubans a year, only 7,200 entry visas were issued last year
and barely 500 so far this year. This is a deliberate attempt to provoke
the kind of hysteria that the Democratic Clinton administration instigated
at the height of the economic crisis in 1994, leading hundreds of balseros
(“raft people”) to sail out into the Florida straits. Over the last seven
months there have been seven hijacking incidents, a sharp increase. Meanwhile,
a new chief of the U.S. Interests Section (equivalent to an embassy, since
Washington broke diplomatic relations with Havana in the early ’60s), James
Cason, has been ostentatiously conspiring with pro-U.S. “dissidents” in
Cuba as a deliberate provocation.
When he took over last fall, Cason vowed to “bring freedom and democracy”
to Cuba. He told a press conference in Miami that he regularly meets with
the National Cuban-American Foundation and other organizations of the gusano
exiles (the counterrevolutionary “worms” who fled Cuba after the revolution
overthrew the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Bastista).
In addition to provocatively turning its diplomatic representation
into the headquarters of a counterrevolutionary conspiracy, Washington has
been pouring dollars into the effort to overthrow the Cuban government.
More than $22 million has been funneled to Cuban anti-Communist groups since
1997 by the U.S. Agency for International Development, including $8 million
for promoting “solidarity with activists in Cuba,” $1.6 million to “non-governmental
organizations” in Cuba, $2.3 million to a Center for a Free Cuba, $1.2 million
to a Center for Support of Dissidents, etc. Some 7,000 radios have been
distributed set to receive the CIA’s “Radio Martí,” on which the
U.S. spends over $25 million a year.
Liberals Go Balistic
Over Repression of Counterrevolutionaries
On March 19, as Bush was about to launch the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Cuba arrested 75 of the plotters who had been conspiring with the U.S. “diplomats.” Almost immediately, as if on signal, a Cuban DC-3 aircraft was hijacked to Key West by terrorists who held knives to the throats of the pilots. American authorities announced they would grant bail to the hijackers and refused to return the aircraft, as required under a 1995 agreement with Cuba. With this encouragement, on March 31 another Cuban plane was hijacked. Then on April 2, a ferry boat was seized with 50 passengers on board and headed toward Florida. When the boat ran out of fuel, the hijackers threatened to shoot two passengers, who then jumped overboard in rough waters to escape their tormentors. As Cuban navy boats rescued them, other passengers jumped from the ferry as well.
Hijacker threatens kidnapped passenger on ferry boat with a knife to the neck (left), 3 April 2003. Passengers jumped over board to safety as Cuban security forces stormed the boat (center). Child rescued from hijacked ferry (right). (Photos from Cuban TV)
In early April, summary trials were held of the 75 arrested conspirators
and the ferry boat hijackers. Ten Cuban intelligence agents who had infiltrated
the counterrevolutionary groups testified about the plotting in the U.S.
Interests Section. Proof was given of thousands of dollars received from
the U.S., including receipts. Official passes were exhibited giving the defendants
“free passage” at any time of day or night to enter and move about the U.S.
diplomatic enclave. Evidence was shown of their collaboration with well-known
CIA agents. These mercenary “dissidents” were given sentences ranging from
eight to 26 years in prison for secretly receiving funds from their U.S.
paymasters and collaborating with the former colonial masters to reassert
Yankee control of Cuba. Ten people were found guilty of hijacking the ferry,
and the three main hijackers were sentenced to death; they were executed
on April 11.
Washington predictably howled over the repression that it had brazenly
provoked. But the Bush administration’s feigned outrage soon received reinforcement
from a chorus of condemnation by a number of prominent liberals. On April
23, the Cuban Policy Forum, a group headed by former U.S. secretary of state
William Rogers which opposed the embargo, disbanded in protest over the
executions and jailings. Leftish intellectuals began circulating statements
denouncing Cuba’s supposed suppression of dissidence. Portuguese Nobel Prize-winning
author José Saramago, a former friend of Castro, wrote that “from
now on, Cuba can follow its own course, and leave me out.”
Saramago was followed by the Uruguayan Eduardo Galeano and the Mexican
Carlos Fuentes. Prior to the court verdicts a letter from 62 American and
European intellectuals had called on the Castro government to release the
so-called “peaceful opponents and independent journalists.” Among the signers
were the writers Günter Grass, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jorge Edwards and
the Mexicans Carlos Monsiváis, Enrique Krauze and (former foreign
minister) Jorge Castañeda. After the sentences, 50 Spanish artists
and intellectuals signed a statement condemning the repression, including
Joan Manuel Serrat, Pedro Almodóvar, Ana Belén and other reputed
“progressives.” They professed their “solidarity with the Cuban people” while
joining the hue and cry instigated by Washington.
In the U.S. at least two different petitions have been circulating. One, promoted by The Nation magazine, denounced Cuba’s “brute repression” of “independent thinkers and writers, human rights activists and democrats” which supposedly showed that the Cuban government is “just one more dictatorship.” Its signers include prominent social democrats, Greens and red-baiters, including Bogdan Denitch, Stanley Aronowitz and Todd Gitlin. A second petition, circulated by a newly formed Campaign for Peace and Democracy, adopts a more leftist-sounding tack, declaring that they oppose the occupation of Iraq, U.S. intervention in Latin America, etc., and also protest the repression in Cuba. This includes some of the same signers but also a roster of “progressives” including Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Michael Lerner, Immanuel Wallerstein, James Weinstein, Cornel West and Howard Zinn.
Like Washington’s provocations against Cuba, these petitions are
closely connected to the war on Iraq. The first petition doesn’t even mention
the U.S. invasion (thus including those who support the war), and the second
one “even-handedly” declares “we condemned the brutal Saddam Hussein regime,
and we oppose the United States occupation of Iraq” (but not the war). This
“third camp” position is no accident, for the main writer and organizer
of the petition was one Joanne Landy. During the Cold War, this right-wing
social democrat and follower of the anti-Trotskyist renegade Max Shachtman
played a leading role in organizing support for the U.S.’ favorite
anti-Soviet counterrevolutionaries, putting out a bulletin in support of
Solidarność and backing the CIA’s mujahedin against Soviet intervention in
Afghanistan. She opposed the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions and has long
advocated the violent overthrow of the Cuban government. As a reward for
her counterrevolutionary services to U.S. imperialism, she has been made
a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.
Yet another petition is circulating internationally, this one in
support of Cuba. It was read at the May Day celebration in Havana by Pablo
González Casanova, former rector of the National University of Mexico,
and was signed by Gabriel García Márquez and other leftist
intellectuals of a more nationalist bent. This appeal “To the Conscience
of the World,” warns that the present war of words against Cuba could easily
become the pretext for an invasion. Yet its defense of Cuba is purely on
the basis of “universal principles of national sovereignty, respect of territorial
integrity and self-determination” and of defense of “the international order”
threatened by the domination of “a single power” as a “consequence of the
invasion of Iraq.” U.S. imperialist hegemony of course predates the invasion
of Iraq, but this is an appeal to supporters of other imperialist powers
(such as France and Germany) who hesitated over the Bush government’s blatant
go-it-alone policy summed up in the “doctrine” of “preemptive war.”
In fact, many of the signers of the petitions denouncing the Cuban
government’s actions have supported various of Washington’s wars in the
name of “human rights,” such as recent wars on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan,
while others waffled. (Indeed, Cuba abstained in the UN in the vote on Gulf
War I.) In contrast, revolutionary Trotskyists called on the Viet Cong to
take Saigon, hailed the Soviet Army’s fight against the CIA’s “holy warriors”
in Afghanistan, called for stopping Solidarność counterrevolution and have
defended Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq against imperialist war. We fight
for the defeat of the imperialists across the globe by seeking to mobilize
the power of the working class for international socialist revolution. And
contrary to the Castro bureaucracy’s illusory policy of “peaceful coexistence”
with the imperialists, as followers of Trotsky and Lenin we stand four-square
for the internationalist defense of the Cuban Revolution against imperialism.
Fake Lefts Split:
Pro-Imperialist “Democrats” and Castro Cheerleaders
It is not only the openly social-democratic reformists and liberals
who have joined the chorus against repression in Cuba. In France, the Ligue
Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) of Alain Krivine published a disgusting
article titled “Cuba: We Know, So What?” (Rouge, 24 April), in which
these pseudo-Trotskyists say they know that imperialist “democrats” denounce
the lack of democracy on the island and that the Bush government practices
state terrorism. “We know all that, so what?” They declare that “defense
of elementary democratic rights and freedoms are not dishes à la carte,”
that they are “against any crimes of opinion,” that they are against the
death penalty which is “morally intolerable and politically ineffective,”
and that they “totally condemn the parody of justice that has just taken
place” in Cuba. There is not even a hint of proletarian class program in
this statement. It has nothing in common with Trotskyism and everything in
common with bourgeois liberal “morality.” And not surprisingly, like the
liberals, the LCR called on the NATO imperialists to intervene in Yugoslavia
in the name of “human rights.”
Cuban family protest hijacking of ferry boat in Tinaja, near where boat was docked after rescue of passengers, 3 April 2003. Sign says: Down with Terrorism! (Photo: José Goitia/AP)
The decaying “international” the LCR is part of, which calls itself
the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USec) although it is
neither united nor Trotskyist, has a slightly softer version of the same
pro-imperialist policy in a May 14 declaration. In that statement, the USec
declares the Cuban government’s methods to be “unacceptable from a revolutionary
democratic point of view.” Their self-definition as “revolutionary” democrats
speaks volumes about the social-democratization of the followers of the late
Ernest Mandel. A few years ago the French LCR debated changing its name to
something more appropriate, but couldn’t decide whether to strike the word
“communist” or the world “revolutionary,” and ended up doing nothing, out
of lethargy. “Undeniably, Cuba is in an even more difficult situation than
in the past,” the USec admits, but this does not permit using the “unacceptable
death penalty” and other “extreme repressive methods.” So here we have the
ostensibly Trotskyist USec, which apologized for and defended the jailing
of the Cuban Trotskyists in the 1960s now objecting to extreme repressive
methods against counterrevolutionaries openly working with U.S. spy agencies.
In standing for military defense of Cuba against counterrevolution,
the Internationalist Group declares that the repression against the U.S.-linked
conspirators and terrorists in Cuba is utterly justified. They are imperialist
agents, not “dissidents.” They are not exercising the freedom of opinion
or right of expression but plotting the restoration of capitalism in cahoots
with the U.S. ambassador, working out of the U.S. embassy and receiving
bundles of U.S. dollars for their efforts. As Trotskyists we have long opposed
the death penalty in Cuba, as we do in the United States and everywhere
in the world. We give no political support to the Castro bureaucratic regime
and have denounced the 1990 Stalinist show trial and execution of Cuban
general Arnaldo Ochoa, carried out in an effort to curry favor with the
U.S. in the “war on drugs.” But the masterminds of the ferry boat hijacking
were engaged in a counterrevolutionary act of war as part of escalating
U.S. threats against Cuba. Not to have responded decisively to this provocation
would have facilitated U.S. attempts to whip up hysteria such as led to the
wave of raft launching in the early 1990s, or the Mariel exodus a decade
earlier. Only this time, in the wake of the war on Afghanistan and Iraq,
the U.S. is poised to use such a frenzy to intervene militarily seeking to
extirpate the Cuban Revolution with blood and fire.
Our communist program is counterposed to the vast bulk of the self-proclaimed socialist left, which politically supports the Cuban government while constantly seeking to gain popularity by building “popular fronts” with precisely the layer of liberals who are now howling about repression in Cuba. Thus Nat Weinstein of the ostensibly Trotskyist organization Socialist Action laments that “Chomsky’s proud antiwar record has been marred by his anarchist bent toward equating the heinous deeds of the oppressor imperialist state to the defensive actions of its victims in the Cuban workers’ state” (Socialist Action, May 2003). Yet despite his sometime “anarchist” pretensions, Chomsky has been trumpeted by the Democratic Socialists of America as one of their members and is at bottom a petty-bourgeois liberal who wants the United States to pursue a different policy. That is in fact the program of the various “antiwar” coalitions which seek a more “humane,” more “people-friendly” imperialism.
Prisoner being marched off for interrogation in U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo, February 2002. U.S. Navy base was stolen from Cuba. Prisoners are held incommunicado, U.S. refuses to grant them rights of prisoners of war, and they are to be judged by military tribunals according them no rights, if they are not simply held indefinitely. (Photo: Lynne Sladkey/AP)
Groups such as the Workers World Party, Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action who regularly hail the Castro regime praise the fairness of the trials of the counterrevolutionaries. They were defended by 54 lawyers, many of their own choosing, more than 3,000 people attended. Certainly this compares favorably to another 624 prisoners in Cuba … the detainees being held by the United States in a prison camp in the base the U.S. illegally occupies in Guantánamo. Their names have not been released, they have not been charged with any crime, they are held incommunicado and are denied contact with any legal defender, and (if they are not simply held indefinitely) they will face a military tribunal where they have no rights. But that comparison hardly makes Cuba a model of socialist rectitude. For example, the Castro regime jailed the Cuban Trotskyists for a decade and a half, briefly released them, and then jailed them again in a prime example of Stalinist bureaucratic arbitrariness and repression of revolutionaries.
Marginally more “critical” than the Castro cheerleaders of the SWP
and WWP, Socialist Action notes that Bolshevik rule was based on soviets,
or councils, directly elected by the working people, while “Cuba has yet
to create similar institutions of direct working class rule.” But the absence
of revolutionary workers democracy is not simply a blemish on the regime.
The Cuban deformed workers state which was established through the expropriation
of the foreign and domestic capitalists in 1960-61 is a state qualitatively
similar to that of the bureaucratically degenerated Soviet Union under Stalin
and his heirs. The fight to establish genuine soviet rule of workers
councils that defend the gains of the revolution and seek to extend them
requires a political revolution by the Cuban proletariat against the narrow
Castro bureaucracy which grew out of the petty-bourgeois guerrilla army and
has monopolized political power ever since.
This struggle can only be successful if it is led by an authentically
Leninist-Trotskyist party, which fights on the basis of the Bolshevik program
of international socialist revolution. Castroism, like all other variants
of Stalinism, embraces a nationalist and conservative ideology of building
“socialism in one country.” But as communists from Marx and Engels to Lenin
and Trotsky have insisted, socialism can only be built internationally,
at the highest level of development of the productive forces. As long as
the revolution is nationally limited, particularly in an economically less
developed country, it will be prey to the tremendous economic pressures
of imperialism – whether through an economic blockade or through the operation
of the “free market.” In Cuba, the machinations of the Miami gusano mafia
and their agents or the intrigues run out of the U.S. Interests Section
may be contained by an efficient intelligence apparatus. But as the collapse
of the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc deformed workers states underlined,
repression cannot indefinitely stave off the economic power of imperialism.
As Trotsky wrote of Stalin’s Russia, “Military intervention is a
danger. The intervention of cheap goods in the baggage trains of a capitalist
army would be an incomparably greater one” (The Revolution Betrayed ).
Or as Karl Marx put it 90 years earlier, “this development of productive
forces…is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want
is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities
and all the old crap would necessarily be reproduced.” He added that the
universal development of the productive forces “makes each nation dependent
on the revolutions of the others” (The German Ideology ).
Smash Imperialism Through International Socialist Revolution!
The economic pressures of imperialism on Cuba are seen not only
in the millions of dollars which enter the country from relatives in Miami
or the U.S. government in Washington. They also encourage the development
of pro-imperialist elements in the Castro bureaucracy itself. The recent
May Day march in Havana, which again drew a million participants, had as
its main slogan “defense of socialism.” Yet a year ago, Roberto Robaina was
purged as foreign minister on charges of hobnobbing with foreign capitalists.
Robaina became foreign minister in 1993, at the time that Castro decided
to permit the free circulation of the U.S. dollar, a step constituting a
grave threat to the collectivized Cuban economy. Robaina was closely identified
with that policy of “opening” the island to capital, which exacerbated social
tensions on the beleaguered island. Together with Robaina a number of upper-level
functionaries involved with these policies were expelled from the Communist
Party, the political organization of the bureaucracy. But they are only the
tip of the iceberg, and more pro-capitalist elements undoubtedly exist.
Because of the island’s small size and exposed location, just “90
miles from Florida,” Cubans are acutely aware that their fate depends on
world developments. But while the Castro regime occasionally dabbled (several
decades ago) in promoting petty-bourgeois guerrilla warfare elsewhere in
Latin America, its Stalinist-nationalist program was frontally opposed to
proletarian internationalism. It looked to the peasantry, not the working
class, whose power it feared, and when struggles took on a mass character
posing the possibility of revolution, such as in Brazil in the early ’60s,
Castro (and Guevara) cut them off in order not to inconvenience friendly
popular-front governments. Moreover, while showing interest in the situation
of blacks in the U.S., Cuba never sought to encourage revolutionary struggles
in the United States, which is key to any revolution in the hemisphere.
A million people demonstrate in Havana on May Day under the slogan of “Defense of Socialism and the Revolution.” Sign says “No to Fascist Warmongering.” Trotskyists defend Cuba against internal and external counterrevolution, while warning that socialism cannot be built on one embattled island but instead requires fight for workers revolution throughout Latin America and in the “belly of the imperialist beast,” the United States. (Photos: José Goitia and Cristóbal Herrera/AP)
So long as Cuba remains in national isolation (far greater now than
when the Soviet Union still existed and Havana benefited from substantial
Soviet supplies of oil), it will be constrained to play on and exploit contradictions
between the imperialist powers. But following the demise of the Soviet Union,
the core of the Castro regime’s policy has been to look to the European
and Latin American bourgeoisies as a counterweight to the United States.
Havana also sought to offer its services to the U.S., first in the “war
on drugs” and later in the “war on terrorism,” in a vain attempt to “peacefully
coexist” with the imperialist giant next door. But the Washington Cold Warriors
and Miami gusanos are bent on counterrevolution, and to stop them
it is necessary to defeat them. This cannot be accomplished by appealing
to the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois “friends of Cuba,” who are now up in
arms over the repression of counterrevolutionaries, or by looking to other
In contrast to Stalinist-nationalist illusions of “building socialism
in one country” and its programmatic counterpart internationally – “revolution
in stages” (beginning with a “democratic” bourgeois stage) and “popular
fronts” to head off workers revolution – Trotsky put forward the perspective
and program of permanent revolution. Summing up the experience of
two Russian Revolutions (1905 and 1917), Lenin’s comrade-in-arms and the
founder of the Red Army noted that in the imperialist epoch, the period of
capitalism’s decline, even elementary democratic demands cannot be accomplished
by the bourgeoisie, as at the time of the great French Revolution. Instead,
achieving national liberation from the yoke of imperialism,
agrarian revolution against the latifundistas, and democracy
for working masses can only be brought about by the victory of
workers revolution, supported by the impoverished peasantry
and other oppressed sectors.
Such a revolution requires the leadership of a Leninist-Trotskyist
communist party to come to power, and it must be extended to the advanced
capitalist (imperialist) countries if it is to go forward to building a
classless socialist society, which can only be built internationally on
the basis of plenty and not the penury of a besieged island. In contrast
to the impossibility of a “socialist Cuba” alone, Trotskyists fight for
a federation of Caribbean workers republics in a socialist united states
of Latin America. Rather than looking for “alliances” with the likes of
Mexico’s Coca-Cola capitalist president Vicente Fox or others of Washington’s
neo-colonial satraps, revolutionaries look to the millions-strong proletariat
throughout the continent. In the face of threatened invasion of Cuba
by the Bush war hawks and their gusano partners, it is necessary
to look not to the liberal intelligentsia but to working people, blacks,
Latinos, immigrants and other sectors oppressed by the same bourgeoisie as
threatens Cuban workers.
Cuba has made important social gains compared to any other country
of Latin America. The lowest infant mortality rate in the continent, equal
to that of the United States, and substantially less than that in New York
City or Washington. Universal literacy and education. Universal health care
far better than that available to the poor of the U.S.’ inner cities and
even than that available to the middle classes of much of the continent.
But these gains are mortally threatened by the advance of counterrevolutionary
forces from within and without.
A revolutionary workers party must be built in Cuba that can defend
and extend these gains. It can only be built in the struggle for a reforged
Fourth International, the continuation of the Communist International of
Lenin and Trotsky. It must be infused with the internationalist spirit of
the founder of Cuban communism, Julio Antonio Mella. In a letter from Havana
prison in December 1925, Mella wrote:
“The unity of America has already been made by Yankee imperialism. The Panamerican Union is the International of the future political empire whose only capital is Wall Street and whose royalty is made up of the kings of the various industries. The unity of America which the most elevated minds dream of at present is the unity of our America, of America based on social justice, of free America, not of exploited America, colonial America, America which is the fiefdom of a few capitalist companies served by a few governments that are simply agents of the imperialist invader. This unity of America can only be realized by the revolutionary forces who are enemies of international capitalism: workers, peasants, Indians, students and vanguard intellectuals. No revolutionary at the present time can cease to be an internationalist. That would be ceasing to be revolutionary. No program of renovation, or for the destruction of any tyranny, can take place without a joint action of all the peoples of America, including the United States….
To contact the Internationalist Group and the League for the Fourth International, send e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org