Letters

N-word

In an episode of The Boondocks TV series, protagonist Riley Freeman, a young black boy, is called ‘the N-word’ by his teacher. He defends his decision to call him that - given that Riley and other black people use the word constantly, it was unclear to him how his own use of the word could cause offence. This episode is based on real events, which took place around 2006, when a white teacher referred to his student as ‘the N-word’ because he thought it would endear him to black students. This is only tangentially relevant.

Now, Jack Conrad of the CPGB is a peculiar, but very interesting, character. I quite like what he has to say about most things, especially on questions of communist strategy. I find myself agreeing with him often. He also has a funny way with language. Three or so times we can quote him saying ‘the N-word’ during the Online Communist Forum and sessions of Communist University. Now, this is not a ‘woke left’ ‘cancelling’ of comrade Conrad. Instead, we should think about his use of the word, ‘nigger’.

In his first documented use, he quotes an apocryphal line from Muhammad Ali: “No Viet Cong ever called me a nigger”. In his second documented use, he is quoting a line from Karl Marx in a personal letter, in reference to his friend and rival, Ferdinand Lassalle, as “the Jewish nigger, Lassalle”.

Shortly after, Conrad defends his use of ‘nigger’: “Now, we are told that you can’t use that word. You can’t quote that word ... In my view, this is crazy, because if you use “the N-word”, we all know what your brain thinks. That’s why it makes sense. Now, you can use what language you want. I’m in general in favour of using polite phrases, but you know, quite frankly, I’m also quite prepared, to use insulting language, but it depends who’s insulted and why. So, yes, when it comes to Ian Donovan, I will use a phrase like ‘You’re an adherent of the socialism of fools’.

“That is not a compliment. That is not just an objective judgement. This is an attempt to use heightened language. And certainly, when it comes to investigating Marx on race, right, we ought to look at such passages and we ought to be able to quote them, put them in context - not to defend Marx, not to, you know, make him whiter than white, but to see Marx, to use a phrase from Oliver Cromwell, ‘warts and all’. Marx could be completely selfish, completely self-centred ...”

So let’s engage honestly with comrade Conrad’s defence of his use of the word ‘nigger’ (he certainly could have phrased it a bit better!). Whether white people could ‘quote’ the word ‘nigger’ in books, songs, etc has been a hotly debated topic. White actors and actresses have had to say that word numerous times in film and television, from 2008’s Tropic thunder to 1974’s Blazing saddles, 1975’s titular Boss Nigger, to just about every film made by Quentin Tarantino (who, coincidentally, often casts himself in roles where he must say the word …). I agree broadly with Conrad that quoting the word isn’t in itself some horrific act of racist violence. However, I do think the caveat here is that the phrase, ‘the N-word’, as grating as it is, is far more appropriate for Communist University/Online Communist Forum.

I will add, though, that referring to Ian Donovan as adhering to the ‘socialism of fools’ is not quite comparable to calling someone a nigger. The former is an attack against their politics, the latter is an attack against their personhood; their identity (not to sound like a humanist). And, of course, we shouldn’t shy away from looking at Marx[ists] and their occasionally backwards view of race. Marx used various racial slurs in his personal correspondence to others, in reference to people he disagreed with or didn’t like. This is in spite of Marx’s consistent support of something resembling human emancipation: not just for white people, but also for the ‘Jewish niggers’ of the world.

Fortunately, Conrad avoids the classic trap of the insecure white person who says the word, like the Louisville High School drama teacher in 2006 (who inspired the character of Mr Joe Petto). He does not bore us to tears trying to semantically separate ‘nigger’, being the racial slur, with ‘nigga’, being the slang term used in hip hop music, black films and the names of bands, although this semantic difference is real and at times matters. Conrad’s use of the word is more amusing than insulting.

However, it does seem to be a trend with older people; Chris Cutrone of the Platypus Affiliated Society is also quoted as having used the word ‘nigger’ at least once, as well as Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek.

An unfortunate reality around the word ‘nigga’ is that it is funny, in ways that are unfathomable to polite liberal society. Black people derive a sadistic joy from saying ‘nigga’ around white people, knowing they cannot say it back. It’s a beautiful kind of racial Schadenfreude. White people have since come up with ways of using the word without actually saying it, often involving replacing it with ‘motherfucker’, etc. But it’s a kind of crass, overly transgressive form of subversive humour that is too reminiscent of the 2016-22 comedy podcast, Cum Town - not quite appropriate for the serious intellectuals of the Marxist left.

In the series, The Boondocks, the word ‘nigger’ is used repeatedly by its black - and white - characters. The series challenges expectations of what ‘black culture’ in the US is. It’s a kind of cultural honesty which is lacking from a post-2016 left that tends to view all of society’s ills as being caused by bigotry or malice against a specific identity group, whether it be queers, transgender men/women, specific kinds of black people, the neurodiverse, etc. I would, for sure, prefer a left that could engage with race and culture as earnestly as The Boondocks once did. But, of course, there’s a time and a place.

One of the few saving graces for comrade Conrad and the CPGB as a whole, really, is that no-one but members of Communist Unity in Australia have seemingly noticed Conrad’s use of the word. I would go on to say that the main issue with him saying ‘nigger’ is that it opens the door to other white people also saying it, in ways that could become absurd. If you see Jack Conrad saying ‘nigger’ and facing seemingly no response, you start to think, ‘Well, why can’t I say ‘nigga’?’ And actually, I wouldn’t have thought of writing a letter with the word ‘nigger’ in it numerous times if it weren’t for the fact that I had heard Conrad say it at Communist University. This is despite being a black person who, by all means, can just say the word, though it never really occurred to me that I could. Eventually, however, if we let the Caucasian clowns of the Marxist left say the word all the time, we all end up sounding like characters in cartoons written by Aaron McGruder. So, can a nigger borrow a French fry?

Colloquially, there is the concept of the ‘N-word pass’. This is a form of social permission given to a white person, by a black person, to use the word, ‘nigger’. You know what? I think Conrad has that pass. It’s not as if we could stop him from saying it anyway. That he was able, through the spirit of partyism or something, to give himself that ‘pass’ in the first place probably says something about the beautiful but tumultuous nature of our universe.

A Black Communist
email

Prohibitions

As a member of the small group that was supposed to organise the launch of the Socialist Education and Debate Association (SEDA) on July 16, I was taken aback by the statement issued by Alex Green and Tony Collins on July 5 that clarifies the political terms upon which they wish to establish SEDA. Indeed, I was also concerned when Alex acted in the typical fashion of an administrator of a socialist WhatsApp group, when he closed the group to only himself as admin.

Let me be very clear: I have no disagreement on the fundamental need for decency, anti-racism and robust opposition to anti-Semitism within our movement. The prohibition of intentional slurs, physical violence and unsubstantiated allegations of state agentry (‘cop-baiting’) should be baseline expectations for any serious socialist space. As a woman, I can’t completely subscribe to not seeking redress from the ‘bourgeois’ legal system, as too often it’s the only recourse possible. But I understand the caution.

However, the method by which these principles are enacted matters deeply if SEDA is to avoid the bureaucratic pitfalls of the organisations that preceded it.

Stating that they will not proceed “hand-in-hand” with those who question any of their listed measures, the letter authors risk bypassing the very democratic processes required to build a resilient, united association. Foundational principles carry genuine weight, when they are thoroughly debated, understood and voted upon by a sovereign meeting, rather than presented as preconditions, administered by an informal organising group via a WhatsApp suspension.

The debate regarding historical references highlights a need for pedagogical nuance. There is a distinct difference between an individual using an epithet to insult a comrade and an educator or text accurately reflecting historical documentation (such as the correspondence of Marx and Engels). While the desire to ensure a welcoming environment for people of colour is paramount, a rigid, total prohibition on verbatim historical citations risks treating adult activists as fragile, rather than equipping them with the historical literacy needed to understand the limitations and contexts of past socialist figures.

Proscribing political currents or individuals such as the ‘Consistent Democrats’ requires rigorous, transparent, collective assessment. If a political analysis crosses the line into anti-Semitism, that conclusion should be openly demonstrated and democratically ratified by the membership, ensuring that expulsions or bans are legitimate products of collective consciousness rather than executive decrees.

If SEDA is to be a vehicle for clarifying what a new workers’ party must stand for, it must embody the highest standards of workers’ democracy from its inception. We should welcome a thorough, democratic debate on these principles at an upcoming meeting to establish a code of conduct, rather than allowing an ultimatum to fracture the project before it has officially begun.

Stephanie David
email

Lexit hero

Paul Demarty’s ‘Ten years after’ (July 2) reminded me of the critique I made of the Lexit position of former RMT union leader Mick Lynch in my biography of him, Mick Lynch: the making of a working class hero (Manchester University Press, 2024). Although Lynch was not a leading Lexiteer at the time of the run-up to the 2016 referendum, he became a leading defender of Lexit after he was elected general secretary in 2022 and became the subject of intense media attention and scrutiny.

I wrote that Lynch contested the notion that the nature of post-Brexit Britain was the consequence of Brexit per se, and believed this was rather the result of the way the Tories had chosen to implement it. But, unfortunately for Lexit, it remained the case that the promise of Brexit to mean ‘taking back control’ would result in the economy and politics in Britain becoming fairer and more democratic was ‘pie in the sky’.

From the outset, the Brexit campaign was almost entirely dominated by reactionary forces, and as a result further ‘control’ has passed on to those who were already in control, so there was no upending of the various elites that currently dominate society for their own benefit. Lexit was, therefore, in this period a major and predictable - even inevitable - strategic miscalculation. Such Brexit forces as existed wanted to leave the European Union in order to further deregulate the economy, allowing private capital to operate with even fewer constraints.

Thus, I argued there was only one way to have had a meaningful Lexit, and that was for a leftwing Labour government to take measures, such as renationalising key sectors of the economy, which would then have led to expulsion from the European Union - measures which would likely garner mass support for such a government to stand its ground and maintain such sectors in public ownership. But even with the credible election result of the Corbyn-led Labour Party in the 2017 general election, this expulsion option-cum-strategy was far from being in prospect, not least because there was considerable opposition to Corbyn from within the ranks of Labour itself.

By the way, the subtitle of my biography comes from what others said of Lynch and is not what I argued of him myself.

Gregor Gall
Glasgow

YP suspensions

We note the formal complaint on the suspension of Your Party central executive committee members Mel Mullings, Solma Ahmed and Naomi Wimbourne-Idrissi, made by seven of the remaining CEC members. The substance of this complaint is that the letter of suspension issued by the chair and secretary on July 3 was an abuse of authority, procedurally unfair and failed to follow agreed rules or procedures.

Republic YP defends the principles of the sovereignty of the members, democratic accountability and full transparency in decision-making, plus natural justice in any disciplinary matters against members - not least our three elected CEC representatives. We, therefore, support the formal complaint and demand answers to it be made available to all members.

On information currently available we believe there are no valid grounds for these suspensions and call for the immediate restoration of the three suspended CEC members to their full status and rights as representatives of the members who elected them. Then Your Party should get down to debating and developing the programme we need to build Your Party.

Your Party has a major problem, because it has no agreed programme. This inevitably brings friction and disputes, and the danger that those with power will take disciplinary action against alternative opinions. This creates a crisis and damages the trust and credibility of Your Party in the eyes of members and the working class movement. The CEC must end these suspensions and get back to politics.

Republic YP
email

Slick rebrand

I have noted in recent months a lack of commentary in the Weekly Worker on the theory and practice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which was rebranded in 2024 from Socialist Appeal in what I would cynically call a move to capitalise on a youth increasingly willing to identify with radical labels, such as ‘communist’.

The RCP claims a growth from 800 members in 2023 to 1,200 members in 2025, with an overwhelming focus on campus recruitment. They defend this as a way of assembling a “core cadre base”, through which they will “eventually reach the working class” (they admit that their retention is still poor).

They have done a decent job of presenting themselves as the only ‘serious’ party for radicalised young people to join, and have developed a strong, slick social media presence to back this up - as an example, their Instagram page has over 45,000 followers, compared to the SWP’s 30,000. While membership numbers and social media presence are not everything, I still think it is important to engage with their ideas, as they become increasingly prominent; otherwise we risk leaving behind a disillusioned layer of young people who have passed through the party and end up perceiving the far left as inherently undemocratic. Despite all their seriousness, the RCP seems insistent that there is a revolutionary crisis around the corner, and that the masses will look to their leadership when it comes.

A recent development, outlined in ‘Raising our sights ...’ (an update published on June 30), is that the party has decided that they are finally large enough to plant their flag “prominently in the anti-racist movement”. They have rightly criticised the “liberal-reformist” approach of the SWP, claiming that they will act as the “revolutionary wing” of the anti-racist movement. Time will tell if they will maintain this posture or fall into the same opportunism that leads the SWP to the politics of the lowest common denominator.

All in all, I hope to see more contributors to the Weekly Worker writing about the RCP, as they start to exercise their influence beyond mere ‘party-building’.

Matthew B
Bristol

Tony’s rants

Is it just me or does anyone else find Tony Greenstein’s rants against fellow travellers to be somewhat predictable (Letters, July 2)? He rants against them for not measuring up to his holy standards - that Jews must never be mentioned in relation to Israel, the destruction of Palestine being all the fault of western capitalists.

First, he came for Gilad Atzmon, and we did nothing. Then he came for David Miller, and we did nothing (apart from Carla Roberts and Jewish Voice for Labour and the Weekly Worker); then he came for me, and again no-one did anything about it. Is this what solidarity looks like?

Rather than rebut Tony’s attacks against me all over again (he really hates free speech, doesn’t he? He’s never happier than when he is throwing some poor Palestine supporter under the bus for saying something he doesn’t like), I beg readers to go to my Substack page again, and read what I have to say about Tony and Huda and his other mates, at substack.com/@petegregson.

Yes, Tony’s pals (he listed them in last week’s letter), who also seem to have a bee in their bonnet about me, might be delighted to hear that Huda Ammori of Palestine Action denounced me as a Jew-hater just a month before one of her assistants called me up to be a driver for some Elbit hooliganism. You can imagine what I said to the man, as I withdrew my services to Palestine Action at this point.

Funny, that; since Huda had declared me persona non-grata, it never occurred to her to tell her fellow PA activists that I was not to be allowed within a mile of any of the PA sledgehammers. One wonders what your average Palestinian (I don’t think Huda is your average Palestinian) makes of all this infighting? I believe they would just want to be rid of the Zionist yoke, even if it were anti-Semites who were doing the de‑yoking.

Still, Tony must have his ego stoked with his ranting attacks that some fellow anti-Zionists seem to be quite prepared to entertain. I generally find that personality bullies accuse others of their own greatest weaknesses. And so with Tony it is his own ego, which he then seeks to tar as egotism in others, which is possibly why last week’s letter to the Weekly Worker was headed “Gregson’s ego”. That and his insecurity and competitiveness …

I grant that Tony is a very principled and educated man: it’s just that his principles suggest that he cares far more about protecting those calling themselves Jews than about Palestinians. And most of the organisations that he lists as boycotting me are run by folk calling themselves Jews who feel the same need to protect Jews that Tony does. Except for the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, of course, which was set up by Mick Napier, who dislikes me because I disagreed with him over Christian Zionism vs Judaic Zionism. Mick is notorious for his expulsions - one woman I know was kicked out because she thought the SPSC might like to portray Palestinians as something other than stone-throwing victims.

To conclude, I often get the feeling with Tony that Zionists must be rubbing their hands with glee, as he lays about others in the Palestine solidarity movement, doing their dirty work for them. They don’t need to de-platform people - Tony does it for them!

Please read my Substack piece and make up your own minds.

Pete Gregson
Edinburgh

Faction ban

According to Andrew Northall, factions are a cancer in any Communist Party: they are destructive to communist democracy and undermine the rights and influence of the greater numbers of those who are not in a faction (Letters, July 2).

These are strong sentiments, but the question is, how true are they to reality? As far as I know, the Bolsheviks made a revolution and won a civil war without ever having to ban factions. The same can be said of the Communist Party of China in reverse; the communists won the civil war first and made a revolution also without having to ban factions.

Another important point to note is that the banning of factions in the Soviet Communist Party was never repealed. Officially the ban was held in place right up until the end. In other words, Lenin’s ban never prevented the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party from losing power in 1991. This event was the real reason for the demise of the old CPGB, not factional wrangles, as Andrew seems to believe.

Since communists in the past have made revolutions and won civil wars without having to ban factions, and since banning factions never prevented the CPSU from losing power, we need to look closely at those who are demanding that the Communist Party must ban factions even before the socialist transformation of society begins. If the Leninist policy of banning factions didn’t save the Soviet Union or Communist Party rule, can anyone now seriously maintain this policy as a dogma?

The main question we need to ask is which class interest does the banning of factions serve? To try and answer this question two important points need to be made, which some people on the left may not be aware of. The first is that the fundamental contradiction on the left is that between a democratic and a totalitarian form of socialism. That a totalitarian tendency exists on the left which is antithetical to democratic socialism was obvious enough for it to become a subject of satire by George Orwell in his novel, 1984.

The contradiction between the democratic and the totalitarian tendencies in socialism is not immediately apparent, because the totalitarian tendency usually does not display itself openly and remains mostly concealed until it reaches a position where it can impose itself. I would argue that the totalitarian, bureaucratic tendency within socialism is mostly behind the call to formally ban factions. This is not to say that everyone who wants to do that is a conscious agent of the totalitarian tendency. It is the end result that matters.

I would argue that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and others, who supported the banning of factions in the Bolshevik Party in 1921, which was mostly directed at the workers’ opposition group, became the unconscious agents of the totalitarian tendency within socialism. This was the point, when Leninism began the transition from democratic socialism to totalitarianism. They became the unwitting agents of a semi-conservative Soviet bureaucracy. We know that Trotsky was to later take a stand against bureaucracy. The problem here is that Trotskyism’s opposition to bureaucracy was based on ultra-leftism, combined with an incorrect understanding of the nature of bureaucracy itself.

Trotsky called for a ‘political revolution’ to overthrow what he termed the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’, but the Soviet bureaucracy was no more ‘Stalinist’ than the British or French civil service. Stalin’s later purge of the bureaucracy simply adds weight to this view. For decades Trotskyists have defended the ultra-left view that a political revolution can resolve the problem, while claiming that the Soviet bureaucracy was a product of backwardness, which was the opposite of the truth. Bureaucracies arise based on the increasing complexities of a society, given the level of technology available at the time.

What the left needs to realise is that every socialist revolution will lead to the domination of a bureaucratic caste or class in the absence of democratic socialism. It was the weakness of democratic socialism which gave the soviet bureaucracy such a significant sway, which in turn was one of the reasons which led to Stalin’s attempts to reverse this in the purges of the 1930s. Stalin’s anti-bureaucratic purges sought to put Trotsky’s political revolution into practice and were therefore of an ultra-left character. These purges were partly Stalin’s attempt to refute Trotsky’s claim that the revolution had been betrayed.

There is another issue which some people on the left may not be aware of. Not only is there a concealed contradiction within socialism between democracy and totalitarianism, with the latter demanding a ban on factions, but related to this issue is the fact that the bourgeoisie can rule society through a communist party. Those who equate the bourgeoisie only with private property may have some difficulty with this idea. But what I am saying is simply that the bourgeoisie or a new privileged caste can come to power on the basis of ‘social ownership’ of the means of production. This can happen in advanced countries. It is not something which is limited to backward countries which make socialist revolutions.

This is why the debate about factions is one of the most important related to socialism. We need to know which class interests the banning of factions serve. Based on the understanding that communists made revolutions and won civil wars both in Russia and China without a formal banning of factions, and being aware of the contradiction between the democratic and totalitarian tendencies within socialism, we need to be wary of those calling for a formal ban, since factions never prevented communists from winning power before, neither in Russia or China.

If banning factions had contributed to saving communist leadership in the former Soviet Union, those who believe in a ban would have a more solid ground to stand on. In fact, the ban on factions may have ultimately contributed to the collapse of socialism, because it led to a situation where the enemies of socialism remained hidden in the party, rather than presenting themselves openly as a faction where they could be exposed and politically defeated. It was only during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the anti-communist elements in the party, like Boris Yeltsin, openly came out in opposition to socialism.

We on the left in Britain usually don’t support the banning of factions in the Labour Party and I see no convincing reasons to do so in relation to communists. My argument is that, while communists shouldn’t encourage factions, we shouldn’t formally ban them either. If we ban factions, they are likely to simply go underground.

As pointed out above, the demand for a formal ban comes mainly from the totalitarian tendency within socialism, which in turn represents the bourgeoisie within communism. In the 1848 Communist manifesto Marx points out that when the capitalist ship begins to sink a small section of the ruling class will find their way into socialism. Since Marx was writing in the 19th century, I think it’s safe to say that today we are no longer talking about a small section of the bourgeoisie: rather a significant portion of this class may abandon ship and come over to socialism, when they see which way the wind is blowing.

To call for a formal ban on factions under these conditions is simply disarming the working class. Even Andrew recognises that factions under some conditions may be unavoidable. The problem here is that, if you previously banned factions, you have already given an important weapon to individuals who may seek to serve their own group or class interests rather than the interest of the whole people. In view of the fact that the bourgeoisie can rule society through a communist party, the point is to determine whether the banning of factions serves the interests of the revolution or counterrevolution.

The contradictions in the working class and within socialism are of a non-antagonistic nature. What this means in practice is that in most cases there is no need to form factions, and where factions are formed the contradiction to the rest of the party is also non-antagonistic, unless such factions actually represent alien elements detrimental to socialism.

Tony Clark
For Democratic Socialism

Britain looted

How can a government work when the parties which have governed Britain for a hundred years have become separated from the people? Government has committed vast amounts of revenue to its information ministry and multiple channels of the news media. Coincidentally or not, the media in Britain has suffered a catastrophic loss in newspaper sales and television-radio news audiences have also significantly collapsed too.

Government massively depends on the police to tell them what’s going on in the country. The police can only see people as potential criminals. No wonder we’ve had a million acres of harsh crime legislation, as the government, through police eyes, can only see millions of potential or actual criminals - they see the population in terms of crime. Government has become terrified of its own people, who it doesn’t trust in the least.

Since Margaret Thatcher took over the helm in 1979, this country has been absolutely looted. In fact it was and is the last major revenue stream for the 1.8 million colonial families - the blood-sucking, inbred morons, who form the British state. With the empire gone by the 1970s, it had no option but to loot its one remaining colony, Britain! It has looted far too much for its own safety. It has destabilised the people, the political system and the country at large. They see the people of Britain as they saw the people of the empire. 19th century Britain was one vast crime scene. The British state stunted our physical and psychological growth, physiologically and psychologically terrorised us, created a so-called ‘middle class’ (an ideologically schizophrenic and psychopathic nonentity) and above all else robbed us of the fruits of our labour.

First went the British empire. It had bolted the British state together. Joining the EU was a ploy to maintain a state that had lost its reason to exist. Then Brexit happened and the wolves of nationalism have since staked their claims to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Finally and most vitally for keeping this hellhound state together, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party - the twin pillars of state power in practice and in philosophy - have both suffered enormous loss in public confidence. There is no turning back for them. Regional dissatisfaction is another nail in the coffin! Britain has ‘RIP’ written all over it. Those who have confidence in this fraudulent apparatus they call a state have no place in any communist party.

Reform UK and the Greens are but flimsy shelters seeking to contain the political stampede that is going on across England. They are nothing but parliamentary second elevens. The political bomb has fallen, leaving millions of political refugees. The people are aroused and in motion. Those who can supply ideological bomb-proof shelters for millions of disaffected people will be the new rulers of what seems likely to be an independent English Republic. The stage is set for freedom for Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

It’s a liberation struggle above all else and the holding to account of the monarchy and the colonial fiefdoms. We must judge them in order to rid our invaded mental infrastructure of them.

Elijah Traven
Hull

Cuba work

The Cuban revolution faces its gravest danger in decades. With Cuba under relentless siege by US imperialism and subject to a crippling blockade, the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) leadership has responded by capitulating and opening the door to far-reaching marketisation and foreign capital.

This course threatens the very social foundations of the 1959 revolution and risks repeating, under different conditions, the disastrous events that culminated in capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union. We therefore appeal to every organization and comrade on the left prepared to defend the conquests of the Cuban revolution - from revolutionary socialists to dissidents in the PCC and trade-union militants within and outside Cuba - to reject these reforms and collaborate to defend the revolution.

Whatever our differences on broader strategic questions, we share an urgent responsibility to oppose capitalist restoration, demand an end to the US blockade and fight for the preservation of the planned economy. The decisive question is whether we are prepared to act together against the counterrevolutionary danger.

Such collaboration could take the form of organising joint events, demonstrations or statements, and publicising the urgent need for a left opposition to the disastrous course of the PCC leadership as widely as possible in the countries and arenas in which we work. This must be combined with the broadest possible debate among the working masses on the way forward. The International Communist League has put forward some elements of such a programme in our articles, ‘Cuba: how to stop the catastrophe’ (June 30) and ‘Cuban CP “reforms” open the door to counterrevolution’ (June 20), as well as our June 23 podcast, ‘Fight counterrevolution in Cuba! Oppose reforms, for a left opposition!’

We welcome any suggestions for initiatives and joint work. Now more than ever, a united anti-imperialist campaign is urgent to offer the Cuban people a socialist alternative to both bureaucratic stagnation and capitalist counterrevolution.

Julia Emery
International Communist League (Spartacist)