Full text of "Trotskyism and terror : the strategy of revolution"

See other formats

Trotskyism And Terror:

The Strategy of Revolution

Rep. Lawrence P. McDonald

ACU Education and Research Institute

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1
FOREWORD 4

1 THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY AND THE FOURTH INTER-
NATIONAL 7

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:

ACU Education and Research Institute

600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 207
Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 546-1 71 0 • Price $2.00 each

Published September, 1977
Second Printing, January 1978

2 SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY STRUCTURE AND IDEOLOGY 16

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY FRONTS 20

THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ON TERRORISM 41

LATIN AMERICAN TERRORISM 44

TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN EUROPE 50

TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

’ 63

TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN NORTH AMERICA

TROTSKYITE SPLITS AND SPLINTER GROUPS

THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY— AN UPDATE

FOOTNOTES 81

APPENDICES 91

Introduction

In the wake of the Socialist Workers Party’s suit to halt surveillance of its
activities by the FBI, there has been a steady flow of media comment suggesting
the party is simply a group of peaceful “Socialists,” of no particular danger to
anybody.

A recent example is the August 8, 1977 issue of The New Yorker, containing
a long article by Richard Harris on the alleged misdeeds of the FBI in its dispute
with the SWP. Harris depicts the Socialist Workers Party as “a small, peace-
able, and wholly ineffectual political party,” shamefully harassed by the FBI.
He goes on to describe the SWP as “these Socialists,” and to assert that, de-
spite the SWP’s harmless political efforts, the FBI did its utmost to destroy the
Party . . . . ”

Similar statements about the SWP appeared in the Jack Anderson-Les Whit-
ten column of June 18, 1977. Anderson-Whitten wrote that the FBI had devoted
“an incredible portion of its manpower, its budget and its priorities to spying on
citizens who merely exercised the constitutional guarantees of free speech, assem-
bly, and petition. The Socialist Workers Party, for example, preaches a peaceful
but unpopular Marxist political philosophy. It does not advocate the violent
overthrow of the existing system.”

For anyone who knows the first thing about the Socialist Workers Party and
its place in the Marxist pecking order, such statements are astonishing. As dem-
onstrated by Rep. Lawrence McDonald in the pages that follow, the Socialist
Workers Party is very far from being “peaceable” in intention, and equally far
from being “Socialist” if that word is meant to suggest devotion to parliamen-
tary change within the existing system. The facts of the case, as Rep. McDonald
shows, are quite the other way around:

1. The SWP consists of American followers of the late Leon Trotsky, who
was of course a major figure in the Communist revolution that destroyed the
democratic Kerensky government in Russia. That means, in the first instance,
that the SWP is a revolutionary Communist organization, not a peaceful “So-

cialist” one in the manner of Norman Thomas. The SWP is “Socialist” only in
the sense that countries behind the Iron Curtain are “Socialist.”

2. Moreover, the distinguishing feature of Trotsky Communists is that they
are more inclined toward immediate revolution than are members of the ortho-
dox Communist party. Trotsky’s disagreement with Stalin was that the former
believed in “permanent worldwide revolution,” as opposed to Stalin’s strategy
of consolidating Communist power in the USSR before seeking additional worlds
to conquer. To describe a Trotskyist party as one that “does not advocate the
violent overthrow of the existing system” is absurd.

3. The Socialist Workers Party, as McDonald shows, is the American branch
of the Fourth International — a global network of Trotsky Communist parties.
The Fourth International contains elements that espouse (and practice) ter-
rorism, and many exponents of global terror have contact with the SWP. The
party’s single claim to “peacefulness” is that it contends that isolated acts of ter-
rorism, right now, are counterproductive. Its leaders stress that this is a tactical
difference, and that terror as part of a general struggle would be quite proper.
(One spokesman asserts that, “if supporters of the minority view were against
armed struggle, they would be Social Democrats or Stalinists, not Trotsky-
ists.”)

4. The SWP, despite its doctrinal differences with the Communist Party, has
collaborated with the CPUSA in various enterprises. Both groups were active,
for example, in the so-called “mobilization” efforts of the latter 1960s designed
to cripple American resistance to Communist aggression in Vietnam. They col-
laborated as well in the so-called Fair Play for Cuba Committee, financed by Fi-
del Castro, and the SWP of course remains enthusiastic in its support of Castro
to this day.

5. Perhaps the most famous Fair Play for Cuba Committee member was Lee
Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Oswald was not
only a member of the SWP-supported Committee, but an avid reader of the
SWP publication. The Militant, and an applicant for membership in the SWP
(turned down because there was no chapter in Dallas). To prove his Com-
munist credentials prior to the assassination, Oswald had himself photographed
holding his rifle and a copy of The Militant — its masthead clearly visible in the
picture.

(Interestingly enough, in a new ABC film about the Kennedy assassination,
the actor portraying Oswald holds an entirely different newspaper, the Yugo-
slavian journal, Politika. In running this picture alongside the actual Oswald
photo, Newsweek offered a blurred reproduction of the original in which the
masthead of the SWP paper is indecipherable.)

In the pages that follow. Rep. McDonald offers a wealth of data by which to
gauge the recent media effort to portray the SWP as a group of peaceable So-
cialists. 4'he materials appearing here are reproduced from the Congressional

Record, where Rep. McDonald published them at intervals beginning August
30, 1976, and concluding April 29, 1977. In preparing these statements for pub-
lication, he was assisted by Herbert Romerstein and S. Louise Rees of his con-
gressional staff. The ACU Education and Research Institute is pleased to
make these materials available in collected format so that the public may judge
the nature of the Socialist Workers Party, and the internal security problem
presented by it, in the light of all the evidence.

M. Stanton Evans

Chairman, ACU Education and Research Institute

FOREWORD

Marx Lewis

Of the thirty identifiable Marxist-Leninist organizations or groups which ad-
vocate or justify terrorism in the United States, the most militant and active is
the Socialist Workers Party, which is the American section of the Fourth, or
Trotskyite, International. It and the Young Socialist Alliance, its youth sec-
tion, are also the most vocal in demanding, in the name of civil liberties, that the
agencies which monitor their activities, most notably the FBI, be dismantled.

Their patron saint whose theories they embrace and whose reliance on terror-
ism they endorse is Leon Trotsky. Along with Vladimir Lenin, Trotsky led the
counter-revolution which overthrew the democratic regime in Russia after the
latter had deposed the Czar. While both Lenin and Trotsky supported the ter-
ror which followed their seizure of power, Trotsky was its staunchest advocate.
“Terror,” he wrote in 1919, “as the demonstration of the will and strength
of the working class is historically justified.” He held to this view until he him-
self became its victim by an assassination order from Joseph Stalin, Lenin’s suc-
cessor.

In considering terrorism and its uses, a distinction must be made between
acts of terrorism such as hijackings, kidnappings and bombings perpetrated by
mentally disturbed individuals for reasons of their own, and acts of terrorism
committed to further political and social objectives by force and violence. It is
the latter, now transnational in scope and often coordinated throughout the
world, very often with the connivance or approval of governments, that is a mat-
ter of growing concern. While terroristic acts are not new, the encouragement the
terrorists have received has increased dramatically since 1969. The greatest in-
crease occurred between 1974 and 1975, when the number of terrorist incidents
rose from 893 to 1,313.

It is also worth noting that while there are some differences on details
among the various groups, they are all dedicated to the use of terrorism as a
means of achieving their aims. The Stalinist group in the United States, repre-
sented by the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Workers Party, representing
the Trotskyite International, and the Maoist groups vie for the leadership of the
American communist movement. Fhey are supported by their respective parent

international organizations or governments. Yet they can work together when
conditions make it expedient for them to do so. For example, the Trotskyites are
working with Castro to bring about the independence of Puerto Rico and the
surrender of the Panama Canal. Trotskyite terrorists collaborate with Castro’s
intelligence service, the D.G.I., in Latin America. They all subscribe, in lang-
uage which may vary somewhat, to Mao Tse-tung’s doctrine that all power

proceeds from the barrel of a gun.”

In theory at least, the principal difference among these groups relates to tim-
ing. It is only a matter of when terrorism can be used most productively with the
best results. Lenin and his associates did not favor individual acts of terrorism in
which the nihilists engaged during the reign of the Czars. They did not believe
that the assassination of Czars and other public officials would produce any-
thing except a public reaction which would make the work of all revolutionaries
more difficult. But mass terror was advocated and carried out by the Bolsheviks.
Some of Lenin’s associates, including Stalin, Molotov, and Litvinov engaged in
bank robberies which Lenin sanctioned to raise money for the conduct of their
revolutionary activities.

There are a number of definitions of terrorism, ranging from the conventional
wisdom” that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” to Con-
gressman Larry McDonald’s definition in the Congressional Record of July 2,
1976, “Terrorism: A violent attack on a noncombatant segment of the com-
munity, for the purpose of intimidation to achieve a political or military objec-
tive.” The congressman’s definition is the most accurate and useful one that I
have seen.

Terror, which is motivated violence for political ends, serves several purposes.
One of them is to weaken the political and social structure and the faith of the
people in the capacity and the willingness of a government to deal with it. An-
other is to provoke repression. When governments threatened by terror and sub-
version attempt to cope with terror they may have to resort to repressive meas-
ures which in a democracy repel civil libertarians who, however unwittingly,
lend their help to the terrorists.

In this the terrorists in the United States have been eminently successful.
Large numbers of civil libertarians in no way connected with the terrorists, and
in fact opponents of terrorism as such, have joined with the Socialist Workers
Party and other subversive groups in insisting that surveillance of suspected
groups and individuals be discontinued and the agencies in charge dismantled.
FBI Director Clarence Kelley revealed recently that, under new Justice De-
partment guidelines, the FBI has had to cut domestic surveillance by 97 per cent.
The FBI, to cite the obvious example here, has been forced to terminate its in-
formants in the Socialist Workers Party.

The use of terror, and along with it torture, is inextricably linked to the com-
munist movement. Such measures are deemed necessary because of the blueprint

▲

which Lenin first devised and which his associates and followers have consist- j

ently followed. '

Lenin said the communists cannot come to power by educating the masses to
what he claimed were the benefits of communism. The masses are too passive and
indifferent to revolutionary action. They are content with getting as much as
they can from the existing system. To educate the masses to the advantages of
socialism or communism would take 500 years, he said.

He proposed, instead, that the revolution be made by “professional revolu-
tionaries” who had to be trained in sabotage, infiltration, subversion, and guer-
rilla warfare. He established schools for training revolutionaries in the art and
science of political and psychological warfare. Such schools now exist in all of
the communist-controlled countries. Young people from non-communist coun-
tries are brought to these schools to receive the required training and then re-
turned to their native lands to practice the art. The leaders of communist orga-
nizations in the United States publicly disclaim responsibility for the terroristic
acts perpetrated here, and even deny that they advocate violence or are in any
way connected with them. The Socialist Workers Party has repeatedly issued |

such denials. But these public protestations are belied by the evidence of what is '

said and done within its inner circle and in the secret material it circulates among
its members. The evidence is overwhelming.

Congressman McDonald has made available in the pages that follow the most
authoritative and best-researched study of the operations of the Socialist Work-
ers Party and its Young Socialist Alliance. Between 90 and 95 per cent of the in-
formation presented here has come from the SWP’s “internal documents,”
intended only for the eyes of its own members.

In making this study and inserting installments of it in the Congressional Rec-
ord, Congressman McDonald has made a major contribution to an understand-
ing of the perils we face and of the measures that must be undertaken to avoid
the fate which has befallen other nations now living in captivity. 1

Marx Lewis is the retired Secretary-Treasurer of the United Hat, Cap and
Millinery Workers of America, AFL-CIO. He spent many decades fighting
against Communist and gangster infiltration of the labor movement. He is now
Chairman of the Council Against Communist Aggression.

Chapter 1

The Socialist Workers Party
and the Fourth International

In recent months a great deal of mass media attention has been directed
toward the Socialist Workers Party -SWP- and its youth arm, the Young
Socialist Alliance— YSA— as a result of lawsuits filed by the SWP against vari-
ous Federal and local law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.

Almost without exception, newsmen and editors have taken at face value
the self-serving statements of Socialist Workers Party leaders. The basic SWP
line is that the organization is a peaceful electoral political “third party
which has never engaged in any violence, which opposes terrorism, which has
not been a member of any international political organization since 1940
when the SWP resigned from the Fourth International, the principal interna-
tional coordinating body for Trotskyist communists, to comply with the
Voorhis Act, and which is being “harassed” by the Government merely for
being openly socialist and for openly dissenting from the established political
and economic system.

The facts show the opposite. The Socialist Workers Party is the United
States section of the Trotskyite Fourth International. Leading SWP officials
serve on the highest bodies of the Fourth International its United Secretariat
and its International Executive Committee. Membership in the Fourth Inter-
national is available only to national sections, not to individuals; and only
representatives of national sections may serve in the Fourth International
executive bodies. Therefore it is apparent that the SWP is lying when it denies
such membership. 1

. For the past few years, the Fourth International has been engaged in exten-
sive international discussions on whether terrorism is a useful and appropriate
revolutionary tactic at this time. The majority of the Fourth International
favor the immediate use of terrorism on the broadest scale feasible in as many
countries as possible. The minority in the Fourth International which in-
cludes the Socialist Workers Party argues that while terrorism may be a useful
tactic in the future under different circumstances, it is a counterproductive

tactic at this time. While these discussions have proceeded, a number of
Fourth International sections have been engaged in terrorism.

This report will document the relationships between the Socialist Workers
Party and the Fourth International and the world- wide Trotskyite terrorist
apparatus.

Background of SWP and FI

The Socialist Workers Party, the oldest and largest Trotskyist communist
party in the United States, evolved in 1938 from earlier Trotskyist organiza-
tions. The American Trotskyists were led by James P. Cannon and Max
Schachtman, prominent figures in the Communist Party, U.S.A. (CPUSA)
who with other supporters of Trotsky were expelled from the Communist
Party in 1928 and who then formed the Communist League of America. In
1934 Cannon’s Communist League of America merged with a group led by
A. J. Muste to form the Workers Party. In 1936 on Trotsky’s orders, the
Workers Party group went into the Socialist Party, U.S.A. where the
Trotskyites tried to take over. Nearly two years later, the Socialist Party ex-
pelled the Trotskyites. Cannon then formed the Socialist Workers Party. ^

In brief, the split between Trotsky and Stalin was a personality and fac-
tional fight which had political differences added as a facade to the quarrel.
After the death of Lenin in 1924, Trotsky, a leading figure in the Russian
revolution and founder of the Red Army, was unable to prevent Stalin’s bid
for absolute power. Expelled from the Soviet Communist Party and its Cen-
tral Committee, Trotsky was deported from Russia in 1929 and assassinated
by a Stalinist secret police agent in Mexico in 1940.

Trotsky is often represented, particularly by Trotskyists, as having been op-
posed to totalitarianism and terrorism and that this was one reason he
opposed Stalin. The truth is exactly the opposite. Trotsky was Lenin’s closest
supporter and collaborator. Trotsky participated in and supported the state
terrorism set up by Lenin— the purges, the persecution of political opponents,
the slave labor camps and deportations to Siberia.

In 1922, before his expulsion from Russia, Trotsky wrote:

A victorious war, generally speaking, destroys only an insignificant part of the
conquered army, intimidating the remainder and breaking their will. The revolu-
tion works in the same way: it kills individuals and intimidates thousands. In this
sense, the Red terror is not distinguishable from the armed insurrection, the
direct continuation of which it represents. * * **

Despite the bitterness of the strife, Trotsky always maintained that the
Soviet Union must be supported against the capitalist world. He argued that
the Soviet Union was a workers’ state even if deformed by Stalinism.

It is, consequently, the elementary and imperative duty of all workers, and
especially of the revolutionary Party, to defend the Soviet Union unconditionally
against any and every imperialist nation. * * *

Thus the SWP echoed Trotsky in the “Declaration of Principles and Consti-
tution of the Socialist Workers Party,” adopted at its founding convention.

Trotsky organized the Fourth International in 1938. The Socialist Workers
Party played an important role in the formation of the new communist inter-
national.

However, the initial operations of the Fourth International were seriously
disrupted by a series of assassinations of Trotskyist leaders, including Trotsky,
by Soviet GPU -now KGB -agents; by the 1941 Smith Act prosecutions in
Minneapolis of 18 top Socialist Workers Party leaders who were jailed for
advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government by force and violence; and
by World War II which virtually destroyed the organized Trotskyist move-
ment in Europe. Some key cadres were killed by the Stalinists, others by the
Nazis.

During the war the Trotskyist Communists continued to support the Soviet
Union, stating that the Marxist-Leninist revolution was merely “deformed” by
Stalin. James Cannon introduced a resolution at the SWP’s 1942 convention,
only 2 years after the murder of Trotsky, which stated:

The war of the Soviet Union is our war, the war of the workers everywhere. . . .

We are the Soviet patriots in war as in peace.* * *^

At the end of the Second World War, the Socialist Workers Party was virtu-
ally the only organized and functioning Trotskyist communist party in the
world. The SWP leadership selected Michel Raptis, a Greek who uses the
alias Michel Pablo in the Trotskyist movement, and Ernest Mandel, alias
Ernest Germain, a Belgian intellectual and Trotskyist theoretician, to recon-
struct the Fourth International in Europe. Pablo served as secretary of the
Fourth International.^

The Mandel- Pablo leadership of the Fourth International developed a
theory that mankind must be prepared for “generations of deformed workers
states.”® By this they meant that the Soviet form of communism, including the
whole repressive terrorist state apparatus of secret police, slave labor camps,
et cetera, would be the dominant force in the world for many generations.
While they considered this form of socialism unfortunate, they felt that it was
preferable to capitalism. It was the duty, therefore, of Trotskyists to support
the Stalinist movement and to aid it in taking power.

Thus Mandel and Pablo advocated a program they termed “entrism” by
which they called on the Trotskyist parties to dissolve as public entities and for
Trotskyists en masse to enter the Communist parties in which the Trotskyists
would then function as a secret faction.

The Socialist Workers Party leadership headed by James Cannon opposed
the “entrist” policy. A middle position, supported by some Trotskyists, was
that they should enter into the periphery or front organizations of the com-
munist parties. When the SWP leadership discovered that an SWP faction
supporting entrism had received secret help from the Fourth International
leadership, the SWP precipitated a split in the International. The SWP
joined with the Socialist Labour League in England — Healyites— and a
French group — Lambertists— to set up a new organization, the International
Committee of the Fourth International. The Pablo-Mandel group called
themselves the International Secretariat of the Fourth International. This
split, which began in 1953, lasted until 1963.’

During this period, Michel Pablo (Raptis) carried out “entrism” by serving
as an underground agent for the communist faction of the Algerian terrorist
National Liberation Front (FLN). Raptis was arrested and convicted in
Holland in 1961 of offenses committed while carrying out that activity.®

The Socialist Workers Party broke with Healy and Lambert in 1963 and re-
joined the International Secretariat which was then renamed the Lfnited Sec-
retariat of the Fourth International.

A small group of Latin American Trotskyists actively engaged in terrorist
activities then split away from the United Secretariat. The group, led by Juan
Posadas, called themselves the Latin American Bureau of the Fourth Inter-
national.

Shortly after the 1963 merger, Michel Pablo led another small group out of
the Fourth International. For his services in the FLN underground, the Ben
Bella government gave Raptis a job; however, after the Boumedienne coup
Raptis was fired.

The Fourth International (United Secretariat)

The basic policymaking body of the Fourth International — FI— is the
World Congress which is convened at varying intervals. Since the June, 1963,
Seventh World Congress — Reunification — in Italy, World Congresses have
been held in December, 1965 — 8th; April, 1969 — 9th; and in February,
1974—1 0th — in Sweden.

The representatives of the national sections attending the Fourth Interna- „
tional W'orld Congresses select the members of the International Executive
Committee— lEC— which is the ruling body between World Congresses. The
lEC, by faction, in turn selects the members of the United Secretariat —
USec — which meets roughly on a monthly basis and controls the Fourth Inter-
national’s day-to-day operations between lEC meetings.

The Fourth International’s headquarters or Bureau are in Brussels, Bel-
gium— 76 rue Antoine Dansaert, Brussels 1000, Belgium — and its current

confidential mailing address is in care of Gisela Scholtz Mrs. Ernest
Mandel-Boite Postale-Post Office Box- 1166, Brussels 1000, Belgium.®
Representatives of the Fourth International’s member parties work at the FI
Bureau. The representative of the Socialist Workers Party in the Fourth In-
ternational Bureau is John Benson who uses the alias “Johnson” or “Benny
Johnson.” He has been an alternate member of the SWP National Committee
since 1971. A John Benson was the leader of the SWP’s Young Socialist
Alliance branch in Philadelphia in the mid-1960’s."

SWP Functionaries in the Fourth International

The minutes and voting record of the 1974 Tenth World Congress of the
Fourth International reveal that the Socialist Workers Party had a total of 24
full voting delegates present. Two of these were supporters of the Interna-
tional Majority Tendency (IMT), the controlling majority faction which sup-
ports the broad use of terror tactics now; and 22 of the SWP delegates were
supporters of the minority faction. It is again noted that these records are
contained only in confidential internal publications of the Fourth Interna-
tional and are not available to persons who are not disciplined members of the
FI’s national sections.

A comparison of internal Fourth International memoranda circulated by
Mary- Alice Waters dated November 28, 1975, and December 19, 1975, with
material in other confidential SWP and Fourth International publications,
the SWP Discussion Bulletin, vol. 33, No. 4, June, 1975, p. 45, and the Inter-
national Internal Discussion Bulletin, vol. 11, No. 5, April, 1974, p. 201,
reveals that six top members of the Socialist Workers Party serve on the
United Secretariat and travel regularly to Brussels to participate in Fourth In-
ternational organizational matters. They are:

♦Jack W. Barnes, aka “Celso”, SWP National Secretary: member SWP Politi-
cal and National Committees.

♦John Benson, aka “Johnson,” alternate member SWP National Committee
resident in Brussels and serving as a full-time SWP functionary in the Fourth In-
ternational headquarters.

♦Joseph Hansen, aka “Pepe,” long a leader of the SWP. Hansen had been one
of Trotsky’s bodyguards and had taken most of them up onto the roof of Trotsky’s
house to check a new security system at the time GPU agent Ramon Mercader
arrived with his ice axe. Hansen is editor of the Fourth International’s weekly
magazine, Intercontinental Press, which the SWP publishes for the FI. Hansen re-
mains active in SWP relations with the Fourth International and with Interconti-
nental Press, but was removed from the Political Committee in a reorganization in
May, 1975.)®

♦Gus Horowitz, aka “Galois,” a member of the SWP National Committee living
in Paris and serving as an SWP liaison with foreign Trotskyites. Since his intema-

tional activities interfere with regular attendance at U.S. meetings, Horowitz left
the SWP Political Committee in the May, 1975, reorganization.

*Ed Shaw, aka “Atwood,” a member of the SWP National Committee who be-
cause of his international activities also left the SWP Political Committee in the
May, 1975, reorganization.^^

*Mary-Alice Waters, aka “Therese,” a member of the SWP Political and Na-
tional Committees highly active in the work of the minority faction in the Fourth
International.

The documents also show that all six of the Socialist Workers Party repre-
sentatives in the United Secretariat are also leading members of the minority
Leninist -Trotskyist Faction— LTF— steering committee and also are full
members of the International Executive Committee. Other SWP members
serve on the lEC as alternates— Mitchell, Pedro, and Susan — and on the EOC
Control Committee-Bundy.

Two other Americans also serve on the lEC. They are John Barzman, alias
“Hovis,” and William Massey, alias “Moss.” They are the leaders of a pro-
terrorism-now faction. Most faction members were expelled from the SWP
shortly after the Tenth World Congress for violating procedural rules, not for
advocating terrorism. The Fourth International majority is pressuring the
SWP to readmit Barzman, Massey, and their followers.

SWP Financial andi Other Services to the Fourth International

The publications of the Fourth International include two confidential
serial magazines, the International Information Bulletin and the Interna-
tional Internal Discussion Bulletin.

The International Information Bulletin’s English language edition states it
is “Published as a fraternal courtesy to the United Secretariat of the Fourth
International” by the Socialist Workers Party.

The International Internal Discussion Bulletin issues state they are the
“English-language edition of the internal discussion bulletin of the United
Secretariat of the Fourth International” which “is published by the Socialist
Workers Party as a fraternal courtesy to the United Secretariat of the Fourth
International.”

The public documents of the Fourth International include the bi-weekly
magazine Inprecor — International Press Correspondent— which states it is
the “fortnightly information organ of the United Secretariat of the Fourth In-
ternational published in English, French, Spanish and German” in Brussels—
76 rue Antoine Dansaert, Brussels 1000, Belgium.

Intercontinental Press is published by the Socialist Workers Party for the
Fourth International in English in New York from P.O. Box 116, Village
Station, New York, N.Y. Intercontinental Press, formerly World Outlook,

states that “unsigned material stands on the program of the Fourth Interna-
tional.” Its editor is Joe Hansen. The contributing editors are the three top
leaders of the pro-terrorist IMT faction, Ernest Mandel, Livio Maitan and
Pierre Frank, and George Novack, a veteran functionary of the Socialist
Workers Party.

While avoiding technical violation of the Voorhis Act, the SWP picks up
the expenses for the English language editions of the two confidential internal
magazines and for the production of Intercontinental Press.

A letter to Ernest Mandel in Brussels from Barry Sheppard, the SWP or-
ganization secretary, on behalf of the SWP political committee dated June 28,
1974, makes clear the Socialist Workers Party is a section of the Fourth Inter-
national and that it has used a variety of means to overcome the ban on finan-
cial contributions to its parent organization. Sheppard wrote:

Dear Comrade Mandel:

The Political Committee of the Socialist Workers Party has considered the
report from Comrades Johnson [John Benson], Atwood [Ed Shaw] and Therese
[Mary-Alice Waters] that took place at the May meeting of the United States
Secretariat under the agenda point designated as “finances.”

*****

However, at the last meeting of the United Secretariat, some comrades of the
majority, we were told, even went so far as to make remarks like “We’re getting
tired of hearing about this Voorhis Act excuse,” and comments of a similar na-
ture. Threats were made by some to bring out alleged “records” to “prove” that
the SWP has in the past given cash to the Fourth International. We can only
assume that such comments stem from ignorance, since obviously there have been
no such contributions.

*****

On the substance of the matter, it seems to us that some of the implications are
quite grave.

Since the SWP is unable to affiliate with, accept financial support from, or
contribute to the Fourth International, it was always understood that the SWP
took responsibility for legitimate SWP expenses such as:

1 . Living and travel expenses abroad for one or more SWP leaders;

2. Travel expenses for our observers, which are extremely high because of the
fact that the headquarters of the world movement is located in Europe;

3. Printing and distributing free of charge as a fraternal courtesy to the United
Secretariat an English-language internal discussion bulletin (in the last year this
has been expanded to include a series of Spanish-language bulletins also);

4 . Postage for international bulletins printed in the U . S . A . ;

5. Purchase of substantial quantities of Trotskyist literature published in the
U.S. A. to facilitate its circulation at reasonable prices in colonial and semicolonial
countries;

6. Assuring the regular publication of Intercontinental Press, the weekly maga-
zine of the Fourth International.

Since these expenses come to many thousands of dollars a month (several times
more than the contributions of the largest sections and sympathizing organiza-
tions) our cothinkers in the world Trotskyist movement have always agreed with
us that morally this was equivalent to what official sections of the International
contributed to the work of building the world movement.'®

Sheppard goes on to say that this is the basis on which the SWP has
operated with the Fourth International since reunification in 1963. In other
words, the SWP is paying the living and travel expenses of John Benson and
Gus Horowitz, its representatives at the Brussels Fourth International head-
quarters. It pays all travel expenses for SWP members traveling on Fourth In-
ternational business. It prints and distributes the English language confi-
dential internal Fourth International publications. It subsidizes the publica-
tion of “vast amounts” of Trotskyite literature and picks up the distribution
costs. And the SWP publishes the Fourth International’s weekly news maga-
zine for the FI. These expenses are paid by the SWP in lieu of direct cash con-
tributions and have been accepted as the SWP’s fair share of Fourth Interna-
tional costs to be paid by each national section.

The fact that the Socialist Workers Party is actually a section of the Fourth
International and that its “sympathizing” or “fraternal” status is a mere fic-
tion is also shown by the fact that leading members of the Fourth Interna-
tional’s International Executive Committee have attended sessions of the SWP
national conventions open only to SWP delegates and top functionaries. At
these sessions, even members of the SWP and YSA who are not delegates but
who are attending as observers are not admitted.

At the August 1973, SWP national convention, Livio Maitan, alias
“Domingo” and “Claudio,” spoke at length on behalf of the International
Majority Tendency supporting terrorism. Maitan is the head of the Italian
section of the FI and with Ernest Mandel and Pierre Frank of France is a top
leader of the FI. Accompanying Maitan was Peter Petersen, another Fourth
International lEC leader from the British FI section.'’

In 1973, Charles Micheloux, a FI-IEC member and leading member of the
Fourth International’s French section, the LCR, toured the United States
speaking to Young Socialist Alliance meetings in support of the proterrorism
line of the IMT majority faction and supporting like-minded members of the
SWP and YSA.'* His tour was in accord with the Statutes of the Fourth Inter-
national. Statute 14 states:

The International Executive Committee cooperates with the national sections
in helping to raise the theoretical, political, and organizational level of their in-
ternal life. * * * intervention of this kind (is) carried on by such activities as tours
and visits by members of the International leadership. * * * the International
has the right to send a representative to present its views.

Statute 14 continues:

Such representatives are responsible to the United Secretariat and the Interna-
tional Executive Committee. The national leadership should cooperate closely,
giving representatives of the International Executive Committee voice (but only
consultative vote) in all leading bodies, enabling them to discuss freely with the
membership, and permitting them to present motions if they wish.

Thus, in 1974, Micheloux attended a closed, as usual, meeting of the SWP
National Committee as a representative of the lEC and its controlling
“terrorism-now” majority.'*

The fact that the Socialist Workers Party is under the discipline of the
Fourth International was again demonstrated at the August, 1975, SWP Na-
tional Convention. Both the majority and minority factions of the Fourth In-
ternational have been trying to bring into the Fourth International other
Trotskyist parties that had previously split with the organization in order to
bolster their factions.

The Mandel leadership has been involved in unity maneuvers with Michel
Pablo and his group. The SWP has carried on the same kind of activity with
Lambert and his OCRFI. In 1971 Lambert broke with Healy.^*

The SWP invited observers to attend its convention from the French
Lambertist group, the OCRFI. As Jack Barnes explained:

We invited the comrades of the OCRFI to observe the open sessions of our
convention * * * with the proviso that the closed sessions will be closed to them
as to other observers, and open only to the convention delegates and the lEC
members of the Fourth International here as observers.^'

In other words, even friendly Trotskyite observers from groups outside the
Fourth International are barred from attending the closed sessions of the
SWP convention, while the representatives of the Fourth International lEC
are admitted as full participants.

Chapter 2

Socialist Workers Party
Structure and Ideology

The Socialist Workers Party is a revolutionary Communist Party working
for the imposition of a worldwide Communist system.

At its founding conference held December 31, 1937 to January 3, 1938, it
passed a declaration of principles of the Socialist Workers Party. This said
that the role of the Socialist Workers Party was “the overthrow of the capital-
ist state and the transfer of sovereignty from it to their own workers’ state—
the dictatorship of the proletariat.”'

It said:

The main specific task of the S.W.P. is the mobilization of the American
masses for struggle against American capitalism and for its overthrow.^

In the imperialist United States, the S.W.P. fights against war preparations and
militarization; but at the same time always makes clear that war cannot be per-
manently prevented unless the imperialist government of the United States is
overthrown and its place taken by a Workers’ State, that lasting peace is possible
only under socialism.^

It is, consequently, the elementary and imperative duty of all workers, and
especially of the revolutionary party, to defend the Soviet Union unconditionally
against any and every imperialist nation.**

The April 1940 SWP National Convention reaffirmed the resolution, “on
the internal situation and the character of the party,” drafted by James
Cannon and Max Schachtman and originally adopted at the founding con-
vention:

The Socialist Workers Party is a revolutionary Marxian party, based on a defi-
nite program, whose aim is the organization of the working class in the struggle
for power and the transformation of the existing social order. All of its activities,
its methods and its internal regime are subordinated to this aim and are designed
to serve it.

*****

The struggle for power organized and led by the revolutionary party is the most
ruthless and irreconcilable struggle in all history. A loosely-knit, heterogeneous,

undisciplined, untrained organization is utterly incapable of accomplishing such
world -historical tasks as the proletariat and the revolutionary party are con-
fronted with in the present era. * * * From this follows the party’s unconditional
demand upon all its members for complete discipline in all the public activities
and actions of the organization.

Leadership and centralized direction are indispensable prerequisites for any
sustained and disciplined action, * * *

It is from these considerations * * * that we derive the Leninist principle of
organization, namely democratic centralism.

*****

* * ♦ It is an important sign of a serious and firmly constituted party * * * that
it throws up out of its ranks cadres of more or less able leading comrades, * * *
and that it thus insures a certain stability and continuity of leadership by such a
cadre. ^

The same resolution specifies that “discussion, debate, and criticism” are
restricted “by such decisions and provisions as are made by the party itself or
by bodies to which it assigns this function” and that all criticism and discus-
sion of party programs and leadership must take place inside the ranks of the
party.”®

The resolution further states that “The first obligation of party member-
ship is loyal acceptance of the program of the party * * *. Party membership
implies the obligation of 100 percent loyalty to the organization, * * *

A second resolution adopted at the 1940 SWP National Convention stated:

The Bolshevik party of Lenin is the only party in history which successfully con-
quered and held state power. The S.W.P., as a combat organization, which aims
at achieving power in this country, models its organization forms and methods
after those of the Russian Bolshevik party, adapting them, naturally, to the ex-
perience of recent years and to concrete American conditions.

The S.W.P. as a revolutionary workers’ party is based on the doctrines of
scientific socialism as embodied in the principal works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and
Trotsky and incorporated in the basic documents and resolution of the first four
Congresses of the Communist (3rd) International and of the conferences and
congresses of the Fourth International.®

SWP founder James Cannon wrote in thesis 15 of his “Theses on the Ameri-
can Revolution”:

The hopeless contradictions of American capitalism inextricably tied up with
the death agony of world capitalism, are bound to lead to a social crisis of such
catastrophic proportions as will place the proletarian revolution on the order of
the day.

*****

The revolutionary vanguard party destined to lead this tumultuous revolution-
ary movement in the U.S. does not have to be created. It already exists, and its
name is the Socialist Workers Party.

In his speech to the Socialist Workers P^rt^ io 7 a

tional Secretary Jack Barne. admitted '

Rulum xlatW^a"^ ““ ‘0-^ - »asically

the national coZht^on May P“5'”

tiona?;:roZLZ^^^^^^^ ■’t “'T ^^-‘“P”-' of —in.

'“ZTy i-pZofZZtZ-

cadrenucIeuacapabTeSZpt^Zd”^

brought on to the H' . and Z ° ™

party leaders. ”>t ^ ground for developing

The process of leadership selection was demonstrated in 1 Q 71 b

Zm" d Orientation Tenancy- PQ^ Z '

°w"r:;v,sr«"rrr

enough “individual stature” in pK "^u- .

sewed almost lOpercent of the SWrmZbeZjZ"

and

z:rtp—

asZiZzzzzzroriheZ-"' t

appendix. The political commitZZi thZwP betZI

caseswch L NtZ:ZZhy ZerZhT"^ ^ ^^‘“P* *“ ^

than one branch “"“bers for more

In 1971, the Socialist Workers Party made an extensive survey of its mem-

bershtp. They determined that 60 percent of the membership had joined in
previous 2 years. Over 50 percent of the membership held dual Zmber-
ship m the Young Socialist Alliance, the SWP youth group. Of the members

ThZwP "" "/r ‘trough the YsZ

the ZT! P"‘'“‘ members had full-time jobs with

the Socialist Workers Party or its fronts. In a membership of less than 1 000
his IS at least 200 people - a tremendous financial burden on the others '»

Chapter 3

Socialist Workers Party Fronts

A front organization is a group controlled by a Communist Party for the
purpose of attracting non-Communists to the support of a Communist cause
and to recruit new members. The Trotskyite Communists, following the
example of the Stalinists, have also set up front organizations.

The method by which the Trotskyites operate in the trade union move-
ment was revealed by Jeff Madder, since 1973 an alternate member of the
SWP National Committee, at the 1971 SWP National Convention. Madder,
who used the alias Jeff Maxton at the convention, described his misuse of his
union affiliation on behalf of the SWP-controlled National Peace Action
Coalition— NP AC. Mackler said:

My first day of school in California I looked around for an AFT button and out
of 1,000 teachers I finally found one. They were having a union meeting so I went.
The meetings started out with twelve teachers, built up to about thirty. There was
a controversial point on the agenda, and I don’t know what prompted me to do it,
but I spoke on it. The next item that came up on the agenda was that the vice-
president of the union had transferred. A hand went up and nominated me for
vice-president, second, call the question, vote, and I was a district vice-president
of the Federation of Teachers.

I was subsequently elected statewide representative to NPAC, and I attended
the NPAC national conference and through that we participated in the labor sup-
port committee. Since I represented 20,000 workers, as opposed to the longshore-
men, who only represented 10,000, 1 participated in the NPAC labor support
committee in San Francisco.*

Mackler went on to describe how, using his position as an AFT district vice
president— elected at a meeting of merely 30 people — he was able to “initiate
a little antiwar project” and circulate an anti-Vietnam resolution to the other
AFT locals for endorsement. ^

The National Peace Action Coalition had been organized by the SWP to
compete with the Communist Party, U. S. A. -CPUSA — controlled People’s
Coalition for Peace and Justice- PC PJ. Both groups supported the North
Vietnamese Communist aggression against South Vietnam.

The 1971 SWP National Convention also received a letter of commenda-
tion from Pierre Frank, leader of the French section of the Fourth Interna-
tional, on behalf of the United Secretariat. Frank wrote:

First of all I express to you the attention and the passion with which the inter-
national Trotskyist movement in its entirety follows the action against the
Vietnam war waged in the U.S.A. and in which you, the S.W.P., play such an im-
portant role. It is this mass mobilisation increasingly large and increasingly firm
to “Bring the GIs home now” which, after the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese
people, contributed decisively to sap at the determination of American im-
perialism and to paralyse its forces. This anti-war activity must not stop for one
minute, even if the victory of the Vietnamese revolution seems imminent. It must
continue in the U.S.A. as in the whole world to prevent American imperialism
from making an orderly retreat, to insure that its defeat henceforth inevitable
should be the worst possible.^

The Young Socialist Alliance

The Young Socialist Alliance— YS A— was established in 1960 as the SWP
youth group. While it is not necessary to be a member of the Socialist Workers
Party to belong to the YSA, 50 percent of the YSA members hold dual mem-
bership in the SWP."* And it is noted that expulsion from the SWP also results
in expulsion from YSA.

In 1971, Ken Simpson and Nancy Adolfi were expelled from YSA. Accord-
ing to their appeal, the only reason for their expulsion was that they had al-
ready been expelled from the SWP and that the charges were “preferred
against them by party members and the majority of their trial body * * *
were also members of the party— people who had previously voted for their
expulsion from the SWP.”^

Barry Sheppard, SWP organizational secretary has said, “recruitment to
the YSA is party work * * He went on to say,

For the last 15 years our basic recruitment to the party has been from the YSA.
This aspect of our recruitment will continue to be important. Since the YSA
serves in this aspect as both a training ground and a screening process, when YSA
members join the party we are recruiting people who have already decided they
want to be professional revolutionaries. They go through a process in the YSA that
helps them make up their minds. They’ve learned something about our pro-
gram, methods and organization. It’s going to be different when we begin to re-
cruit larger numbers of people who are coming directly to the party. We should
not succumb to the temptations to automatically put all recruits in the YSA.
Sometimes I think we’ve done that, precisely because its a good training ground.
What we have to begin to think about is that people we recruit directly to the
party have not yet made the same kind of commitment, nor do they have the same
kind of training as someone who has gone through the YSA.

Sheppard said further,

There are new possibilities of bringing around more contacts from our work in
the desegregation fights, from our work in the unions, and from our election cam-
paigns.

Many of these contacts are YSA-age and attracted to the YSA. But a significant
and growing number, though still a minority, are direct party contacts. Some are
in their late twenties and thirties. Some are younger workers who, given their
life situation, are direct contacts of the party regardless of their age. We can ex-
pect some contacts like this are going to be more comfortable in coming directly
to the party and not the YSA. A worker who is nineteen, has a family, has been
working two years and is attracted to our movement through union activity won’t
necessarily join the YSA.®

The YSA serves as the principal recruiting ground for the Socialist Workers
Party and its major supporter in running the fronts. Most YSA members are
recruited in the colleges. However, a campaign to organize high school |

students has also been undertaken by YSA. ‘

Malik Miah, who has served as YSA national chairman and now is a regular
member of the SWP National Committee, described the high school recruit-
ment in a report to the YSA National Committee Plenum in July 1974. He
stated:

We want to increase our recruitment work * * * on the Black struggle and
socialism to attempt to win Black militants to the YSA.

This orientation of developing a good base on campus also applies to high
school work. When we talk about high school work, in most cases we are talking
about Black work. Blacks as the most radicalized segment of the population are i

generally the most receptive to our ideas. This holds true for Black high school
students. Some of our best opportunities to do campaign work, youth support
work, is at the high schools. The New York City high school campaign rallies and
the response they received are such examples.

Coupled with YSA work directed at the high schools and the major universi- I

ties is the work we do at the community colleges and all-Black schools. This is just '

as important as other campus work and must be well planned out. In many cases
this may mean trail-blazing to campuses where we don’t have members or where
we haven’t visited before in the cities we function in. The number of students
open to our ideas is great on all campuses and we should take advantage of this.’

In that same report, Miah noted how the Young Socialist Alliance rallied to
support the Symbionese Liberation Army. It is noted that Gary D. Atwood,
former husband of SLA member Angela D’Angelis Atwood, was a member of
the YSA at the time his ex-wife and other SLA members were killed in a
shootout with police in Los Angeles. Miah said:

After the SLA members were executed in Los Angeles, the YSA in alliance with
other community forces helped to organize a protest demonstration against the
terrorist methods used by the cops.®

Here we have a high SWP and YSA official calling the police “terrorists” in
defense of a gang of revolutionaries who had murdered the superintendent of
the Oakland schools, Dr. Marcus Foster, and at the same time had fired a
shotgun into the abdomen of his assistant, Robert Blackburn, and had com-
mitted armed robberies and kidnapping.

Miah also described the YSA and SWP attitude toward the police:

I’d like to say a few words on our view of cops. We do not consider cops as part
of the working class. They are direct agents of the capitalist state. * * * This
holds true for both white and Black cops * *. We are not for the reforming^of

the capitalist police force. We stand for its complete dismantling and abolition.

National Student Ck>alition Against Racism

Designed to exploit controversies arising from forced busing, the National
Student Coalition Against Racism -NSCAR- was established by the Young
Socialist Alliance and SWP at a conference held in Boston in February 1975.
NSCAR is targeted principally at black college and high school students and
is being used extensively to recruit new SWP and YSA members from those

^ NSCAR claims some 70 chapters— these are attached to the local YSA and
SWP branches. NSCAR headquarters are at 612 Blue Hill Avenue, Dor-
chester, Mass. 02121 (617-288-6200); its national coordinator is SWP na-
tional committee member, Maceo Dixon, former national chairman of YSA.
NSCAR’s third conference was scheduled to be held at Boston University,
November 19-21, 1976. One of the invited guests was Bernadette Devlin
McAliskey, an Irish Trotskyite and leader of the Irish Republican Socialist

Party— IRSP. . , i

Shortly after the founding conference, SWP National Organizational
Secretary Barry Sheppard described the SWP and YSA role m NSCAR. He
said:

It took a little time and a lot of work. But we played an important role -from
the December 14 (1974) demonstration and teach-in, the formation of the student
committee (against racism), the conference of the student committee, to building
for the May 17 march.

Sheppard continued:

NSCAR is basically a student and youth group; that is, it is attracting non-
student youth as well as students. Helping to build NSCAR is a major task for the

YSA. But it is also a task for the party, because of the role this group is playing
within the whole desegregation fight. It is the only group consistently projecting
the proletarian line of mass mobilization. And the party’s got to pay attention to
it; we’ve got to help build it as a broad action coalition. That’s part of the prole-
tarian orientation we’ve been talking about. NSCAR can reach beyond its own
forces to the NAACP, and other forces in the Black community especially.*'

Committee for Democratic Election Laws

It’s a proper and correct procedure to exploit every possibility to utilize what
cracks there are in the bourgeois-democratic system to advance our ideas. It’s
like taking part in their elections. It’s wise to utilize a situation like this to ex- j

plain our ideas to a wide audience. —James P. Cannon, Intercontinental Press, '

October 29, 1973. \

Although the Socialist Workers Party ignored the electoral process during
the first 10 years of its existence, it saw in 1948 the usefulness of electoral
participation to gain a sort of “legitimacy” and as a ploy to gain publicity and
media attention for its programs. However, in a number of states, the SWP
was hindered from gaining ballot status by loyalty oaths and anti -Communist '

barriers.

The Committee for Democratic Election Laws— CODEL— was set up to \

coordinate support for Socialist Workers Party lawsuits challenging loyalty ,

oaths and other provisions of State election laws. A CODEL brochure said of
loyalty oaths:

These carryovers from earlier witch-hunt days serve no purpose except to limit
the rights of radicals to run for office.

In fact, the loyalty oaths served to limit as candidates those who would not
swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The Socialist Workers Party selected Ronald Reosti, an attorney and
American Civil Liberties Union member who was the SWP’s 1970 candidate
for attorney general in Michigan, as CODEL’s legal director. The services of
Leonard B. Boudin were obtained as CODEL general counsel. Atiother SWP
member, Judy Baumann, was named CODEL national secretary. At the 1973
Socialist Workers Party national convention, Baumann led the CODEL

“tasks panel.

Political Rights Defense Fund

According to a mailing dated September 30,1973, “The Political Rights
Defense Fund — PRDF,— has been formed as an adjunct of the Committee for

Democratic Election Laws” as a direct result of a series of disclosures of
Government surveillance and counterintelligence activities directed at the
Socialist Workers Party.

In a report to the SWP National Committee, Barry Sheppard outlined the
role of the SWP’s lawsuit against the FBI:

The suit supported by the Political Rights Defense Fund is an important
initiative in the context of the impact of Watergate, * * *. Of all the tendencies
on the left, we’ve taken the lead in this situation. We saw the opportunity and
Look the initiative. This has already attracted people to us who see the party tak-
ing the lead in an important fight for democratic rights; it’s a fight for everyone.

And we’ve already had unprecedented results. Never before has the FBI been
forced to turn over some of its files on what they do to socialist organiza-
tions. * * * it is very damaging to the government.*®

We have already seen that the SWP regards the courts and the electoral
process as “cracks” in the “bourgeois-democratic system” which can be used to
advance the SWP’s program .

Sheppard clearly understands that the FBI, which is responsible for both
intelligence and counterintelligence work, is extremely reluctant to have the
details of its investigative techniques given to the very organizations it was
investigating. The SWP leadership believed that the FBI would remain silent
and not resist the lawsuit rather than explain the nature and extent of the
threat posed by the SWP and its Fourth International comrades.

Sheppard stated that—

The government’s going to attack us for our internationalism.

By “internationalism” he meant membership in and support of the Fourth
International and its terrorist groups and allies. The SWP Organizational
Secretary noted that—

Many of the same kinds of issues that were fought out in the Smith Act trial are
going to be brought out in this one too. But this time we are suing the govern-
ment. They are the defendants, not us.*^

The genesis of the SWP suit against the FBI lies in a burglary and theft of
files from the FBI field office in Media, Pa., on March 8, 1971, by leftwing
activists. The stolen documents were published in WIN magazine, the publi-
cation of the militant pacifist War Resisters League, March 1972. These
documents provided the first public knowledge of the FBI’s counterintelli-
gence program -COINTELPRO- whose purpose was to disrupt potentially
violent groups in order to prevent violence.

In December 1973, NBC reporter Carl Stern received FBI memoranda re-
lated to COINTELPRO as the result of a Freedom of Information Act law-
suit. These documents were then used by the SWP to augment a lawsuit

Lee Harvey Oswald

The Fair Play for Cuba Committee vanished in November 1963. The
FPCC had become a major embarrassment to the Left because of its involve-
ment with Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John Kennedy.
Oswald was a member of the FPCC and had a lengthy correspondence with
the committee’s national office in New York. At the same time, Oswald was
carrying on a correspondence with the Socialist Workers Party and had in-
quired into membership. In a letter to Oswald dated November 5, 1962, SWP
national secretary, Farrell Dobbs, explained that the party had no branch in
Dallas and that the SWP did not take in individual members in cities without
a branch, and suggested Oswald sell SWP literature in the “hope it will be
possible before long to welcome a Dallas, Texas branch into the party. ’’^i

Shortly after the death of President Kennedy, Fidel Castro falsely denied
that Oswald was connected with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but in-
advertently admitted that the Cubans maintained the FPCC’s file system. In a
speech reprinted in the Communist Party, U.S.A. newspaper. The Worker
(December 1, 1963, pp. 6 and 8), Castro said:

We have searched through all our files and this man is not listed as president of
any committee. Nowhere is there any mention of any Fair Play for Cuba Commit-
tee in Dallas or New Orleans.

U.S. Committee for Justice to Latin American Political Prisoners

The U.S. Committee for Justice to Latin American Political Prisoners
(USLA) was organized in 1966. Richard “Catarino” Garza, a member of the
SWP National Committee and then the SWP candidate for governor of New
York, was USLA’s assistant executive secretary and its administrator. Migual
Fuente, a leader of Grupo Trotskista Venezolano (Venezuelan Trotskyist
Group), the sympathizing organization of the Fourth International in
Venezuela, described the support given by the Socialist Workers Party to the
Trotskyite terrorist ERP of Argentina. Fuente wrote:

“We should above all include in the record that it has been the SWP comrades,
as well as the Argentine comrades of the Partido Socialists de los Trabajadores
(PST) who have done exceptional revolutionary work in solidarity with the
PRT-ERP comrades in the face of the heavy repression of which they have been
the victims.

Fuente continued:

“The SWP comrades have organized and promoted the effective work of the
United States Committee for Justice to Latin American Political Prisoners

(USLA), whose periodical, the USLA Reporter, has carried many reports on the
repression in Argentina. The USLA has organized tours throughout the USA for
Argentine activists to give talks denouncing Lanusse’s dictatorial re^me and the
crimes he has committed, such as the Trelew massacre. The Canadian comrades
have not lagged behind in this campaign of solidarity.’’**

USLA’s founding Statement of Aims again points to the close cooperation
between the Trotskyites and the Cuban Communists. The document said that
“with the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in the closing days of 1958, it
seemed reasonable to hope that a new era * * * was opening.’’ According to
USLA, the chief block to revolutionary progress was, and is, the United
States; therefore one of the organization’s purposes was to generate public
pressure “for a basic change of policy toward Latin America.’’ USLA was to
“cooperate with organizations in Latin America and other countries which
have similar purposes. ’’*'*

The Young Socialist Alliance made an “international defense campai^
for “revolutionaries in many Latin American countries’’ who “have been im-
prisoned, tortured, and murdered for their opposition to repressive national
regimes subservient to the interests of U.S. imperialism’’ a major project.**
The defense campaign was principally in support of the Argentinian ERP,
the largest Trotskyite terrorist movement, as well as in support of movements
in Bolivia and Brazil.

Shortly afterward, Lynn Silver and Sue Adley, members of the lower
Manhattan branch of the YSA, wrote in a YSA internal publication that
“USLA work is not only important international defense work, but it is also
important in building the YSA. **

USLA publishes a monthly newsletter, the USLA Reporter. The first editor
of the USLA Reporter was Hedda Garza, then the wife of USLA director and
SWP national committee member Richard Garza. Hedda Garza was a mem-
ber of the pro-terrorism-now Proletarian Orientation Tendency and joined its
successor, the Internationalist Tendency, which also supports the “terrorism
now’’ tactic of the Fourth International majority. Hedda Garza of the lower
Manhattan SWP branch was expelled from the SWP in 1974 with other IT
members who violated SWP procedural rules . *’

Judith White, long an alternate member of the SWP national committee —
her husband, Gus Horowitz, is a regular member of the SWP national com-
mittee and until his recent reassignment as SWP representative m Pans was
also on the SWP political committee— replaced Hedda Garza as editor of the
USLA Reporter.*® White and Frank Grinnon, an SWP and YSA member on
USLA’s staff,** led the “tasks panel’’ on “Latin American Political Prisoners
at the 1973 SWP national convention.'^*

Other YSA or SWP members who have been prominent on USLA’s staff
include Selva Nebbia,'“ Walter Brod,'*^ and Lew Pepper.'** Mirta Vidal, an

2 ^

SWP member formerly assigned to recruitment work among Mexican
Americans,"^ and SWP member Jim Little now head USLA nationally. At the
1975 national convention Vidal and Little led the workshop on the projected D,

tour by Peruvian Trotskyite terrorist Hugo Blanco."*^ iJ

As listed in the November-December, 1975, issue of the USLA Reporter, I

USLA officers and staff include: ^ |

Officers: Co-Chairpersons: Dave Dellinger, Dore Ashton; Vice-Chairpersons: |

Judith Malina, Julian Beck; Acting Executive Secretary: Richard Garza; Execu-
tive Board: Robert Collier, Bert Corona, Warren Dean, Ralph Della Cava, |

Richard Fagen, Richard Falk, Rev. David Garcia, Timothy Harding, George I

Preston, Annette T. Rubenstein, Muriel Rukeyser, Dr. Benjamin Spock, 1

Stanley Stein, Robert Van Lierop. I

National Staff: Mirta Vidal, Jim Little; Reporter Design: Will Reissner. 1

USLA has been active in organizing U.S. tours of foreign Trotskyite Com-
munists and other revolutionary supporters of “armed struggle” and terror-
ism. In 1973, USLA-sponsored tours by the Argentinian Daniel Zadunaisky ;

and by Mary Elizabeth Harding, a former Maryknoll nun who was expelled
from Bolivia, were especial successes. Harding, a U.S. citizen, admitted in a
Washington Post interview on May 6, 1973, that she had been a member of
and recruiter for the ELN (National Liberation Army), a terrorist guerrilla
organization containing both Trotskyite and Castroite Communist elements.

With the fall of the Marxist regime of Salvador Allende in Chile, USLA
moved into organizing protests and demonstrations against the coup. Among
those featured at USLA rallies in the fall of 1973 were Edward Boorstein, a
former assistant to Allende’s economic adviser;46 Mark Cooper, Allende’s per-
sonal translator Heather Dashiell, also an Allende translator;^® and Joe
Collins of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). The SWP’s newspaper re-
ported a speech by Collins at a New York rally on November 4, 1973, on his
return from an “investigative tour” of Chile he had made as a congressional
aid, as pointing out the “urgency of on-going visible protests” against the anti-
Marxist Chilean Government.'^®

A revealing analysis of local USLA work was provided by SWP members
Gary Prevost and Marvin Johnson, of the Twin Cities SWP branch, which is 1

attached as an appendix. '

In his May 2, 1975, report to the SWP National Committee, SWP Organi-
zation Secretary Barry Sheppard said:

Another important area of work is our efforts to help USLA to defend Latin I

American political prisoners. The USLA tour of Juan Carlos Coral was quite U

successful. Especially in reaching out to Chicanos and Puerto Ricans and other 1

people of Latin American descent. USLA hopes it can follow the Coral tour up 1

and take advantage of some of these gains with a tour next fall by Hugo Blanco.®® I

Juan Carlos Coral is a leader of the Argentinian section of the Fourth In-
ternational, the Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores (PST). Hugo Blanco,
an admitted and convicted terrorist, is a member of the Fourth Interna-
tional’s International Executive Committee (lEC). The denial of an entry visa
to Blanco has been the subject of considerable congressional commentary.

On September 22, 1975, USLA wrote to Representative Edward I. Koch of
New York, asking his aid in getting a visa for Hugo Blanco. On September 24,
1975, the Congressman wrote to Secretary of State Kissinger asking for infor-
mation on the Blanco matter. Dr. Benjamin Spock wrote to the Congressman
on September 30, 1975, also asking him to intervene in aiding Blanco. An
exchange of letters followed between the Congressman and Robert J.
McCloskey, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, Department of
State. McCloskey at first refused to provide any details concerning Blanco’s
terrorist acts and advocacy stating the information was classified. Finally,
after much prodding by Congresman Koch, McCloskey referred him to this
Congressman’s report in the Congressional Record of December 19, 1975,
which contained information on Blanco including, “his affiliation with the
Fourth International and other groups, as well as quotations from his writings
in which he has advocated the use of violence . ”

McCloskey further stated that Blanco’s public record included “his declara-
tion that he took full and sole responsibility for the murders of three police-
men which occurred during a raid he and his followers made on a police sta-
tion in Peru during 1962.”

Congressman Koch wrote to Dr. Spock indicating his agreement with the
State Department’s decision to bar Blanco on the grounds of his admitted
responsibility for the murder of three policemen” and his advocacy of “the use
of violence.”

Dr. Spock responded on February 18, 1976:

I have no idea where the truth lies. The plea for his entry came from a responsi-
ble organization.®^

On May 27, 1976, Congressman Koch spoke again on the question of Hugo
Blanco. He said:

But those who must make decisions on the admission to this country of persons
who have engaged in violent acts, particularly ones which result in death, must
exercise that judgment carefully even if it results in erring on the side of excessive
caution — so long as the decision is not arbitrary or capricious. In this case, I do
not believe the State Department was either arbitrary or capricious.

Congressman Koch included in the Record a rambling, self-contradictory
statement by USLA attacking Congressmen Koch and McDonald and
columnist William F. Buckley for supporting the State Department decision
to bar Blanco. Also included was a May 24, 1976, letter from the State De-

partment providing quotations from Blanco in support of violence that had
appeared in this Congressman’s statement in the Record of December 19,
1975, The State Department had also supplied Congressman Koch with a
copy of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security hearing, “Trotskyite
Terrorist International,” as well as copies of the confidential Fourth Interna-
tional publication. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, which docu-
mented Blanco’s activities.

The SWP in the Women’s Liberation Movement and Related Issues

By early 1969, the Socialist Workers Party had determined that the
“women’s liberation movement” which had surfaced among “radicalized”
women in the New Left, particularly on the college campuses, had a revolu-
tionary potential to be exploited. However, while the women’s liberation
movement has focused to a large extent on psychological pressures and on the
desire for careers by middle class women, the SWP saw the movement as a
method of' cutting women off from family ties so as to make them another
component in the proletarian labor force. As the SWP phrased it in 1969, the
women’s liberation movement might release “the full creative energies of
half the potential revolutionary forces available.

From 1969 through 1971, SWP and YSA women involved themselves in the
proabortion movement as the “broadest” issue for organizing campus and
young white collar women. The SWP’s Women’s Liberation report to the
March 1970 National Committee stated:

The abortion question is made to order as the initial issue on which the
women’s liberation movement can cut its teeth. It involves the most fundamental
rights of women — to control their own bodies, to remove from the state the
prerogative to decide who will bear a child and when. * * * the abortion issue
has emerged as the key demand with potential for involving masses of women in
action.

In June 1971 the SWP set up a special front, the Women’s National Abor-
tion Action Coalition — WON AAC— whose principal figure was Carol
Lipman, a member of the SWP National Committee. WONAAC dissolved
after the Supreme Court decisions in favor of abortion.

The Socialist Workers Party is continuing to organize on women’s libera-
tion movement issues. The August 1975 SWP National Convention featured
three women’s liberation workshops: “Coalition of Labor Union Women” led
by Linda Jenness; “Women’s liberation work,” also led by Linda Jenness; and
“ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) work” led by Nancy Brown.

In his report to the SWP National Committee in May 1975, Barry
Sheppard said:

We should see helping to build CLUW from this vantage point. Several months
ago Linda Jenness sent out a letter describing the character of CLUW in different
cities. She broke it down into three categories, depending on what kind of
problems CLUW had with the ultralefts or the bureaucrats. That evaluation
of the general problems remains accurate. However, CLUW has continued to
develop. It hasn’t disappeared, and in fact in some cities it has made some leaps
forward. It retains its importance, given everything we talked about in our politi-
cal resolution, as a Coalition of Labor Union Women. It has big potential as a
part of the developing radicalization. And we want to see it grow.^®

In the 1975 women’s liberation workshop, Linda Jenness said:

I also want to emphasize that whereas we separated CLUW out for a special
workshop, as we did last year, we don’t want to think of it as totally divorced
from our women’s liberation work; it isn’t. It’s part of our women’s liberation
work and we want to try to think of ways that CLUW can relate to other feminist
issues and general women’s liberation activities in any given city.®’

Jenness also described the Socialist Workers Party effort in support of the
Equal Rights Amendment:

Before going to reports about what we’re doing in several cities I’d like to note
that we’ve separated out two areas of our women’s liberation work for special
workshops. One was the Coalition of Labor Union Women workshop which we
had this afternoon and the other is the ERA workshop. We separated these two
areas out because we are involved in national campaigns, and in the case of the
ERA we are planning on stepping up our national campaign. One thing we’ve
noted is that, while the main fight around the ERA for the past couple of years
was in those states which haven’t yet passed it and the fight is to get it ratified in
those states, it’s become clearer that the ERA fight is nationally much broader
than just getting it passed in those states. There are basically three fights.

One is to get it passed in states that haven’t passed it, like Illinois, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Utah, and several others. Then there’s the fight to defend the
ERA in places which have passed it but where the right wing is mobilizing to try
to reverse it. As you know, two states have rescinded the ERA. It’s not known yet
whether this is constitutional, but the anti -ERA forces are trying to do it. We’ve
seen in Colorado a big attack on the ERA by right-wing groups trying to get it
reversed, and a coalition is forming to defend the state’s ratification.

The third area is the phenomenon of states trying to adopt a state ERA that
they can begin to work on and implement regardless of what happens to the na-
tional one. For instance, New York and New Jersey are states where state ERAs
will be on the ballot in a referendum in the fall elections. So of course coalitions
have been formed to make sure people vote yes on this referendum.®®

The workshop documents go on to describe in detail SWP work with the
National Organization for Women — NOW — in the Boston Coalition to De-
fend Abortion Rights, with the Georgia Committee to Defend Abortion
Rights and other groups. Eva Chertov, who had previously participated in the

SWP’s gay (homosexual) liberation “probe, reported on a July 26, 1975,
fund raising party in Atlanta paid for by one of the private abortion mills
and held by the Georgia Committee to Defend Abortion Rights;

On July 26 we held a wine and cheese party to announce the Committee’s plans
at the Kennedy Center, a kind of political center in the middle of the Black com-
munity. The wine and cheese party was paid for by a private clinic, and the
rent was paid for by a city councilman. More Black women were present at this
event than at any previous woman’s activity, including ERA activities, that we’ve
organized. These women were mainly workers in abortion clinics. It also involved
prominent Black doctors who are influential in family planning networks which
are statewide.®®

SWP in the Homosexual Movement

In his “Report on Membership Policy Given to the Political Committee of
the SWP” by Jack Barnes on November 13, 1970, the SWP official stated:

Since the early 1960s the party and YSA have been moving toward a policy
which proscribes homosexuals from membership. This was mentioned in the
organizational report to the February 1970 SWP plenum. The evolution of this
policy was summarized as part of the organizational report which was adopted by
the August 1970 YSA plenum. This report was printed in the September 2, 1970,
Young Socialist Organizer.

The main purpose of this policy was the protection of the party now and in the
future from the effects of legal or extralegal victimization and blackmail of homo-
sexual members.

The Administrative Committee believes that this policy is wrong. It doesn’t
accomplish its purpose and it breeds problems and misinterpretations both in-
ternally and publicly. In so doing it shifts attention from the central question in
all membership policies and decisions— the security of the party, its growth by
recruitment from the mass movement, its capacity for disciplined activity in all
periods, and its political homogeneity.®'

Kipp Dawson, a leader of the SWP “Gay Liberation Problem panel,” noted
in her report at the 1971 SWP Convention the problems she and Eva Chertov
experienced in attempting to work with the Daughters of Bilitis — DOB — and
the Christopher Street Liberation Day Committee — CSLDC — in New York as
well as in WONAAC in support of abortion on demand:

As I mentioned, at the June 13 CSLDC meeting about eight women from the
DOB loft, none of who had been active in CSLDC, led by Martha Shelley, walked
in to demand that Eva and 1 be excluded from participation in SCLDC meetings
on the basis of our participation in the June 12 abortion conference planning
meeting. They interrupted the meeting to read a statement which basically
(1) claimed that at the abortion meeting Eva and I, as lesbians, had led a fight

against the recognition of lesbian demands; (2) therefore they doubted whether
we were really lesbians (the statement described us as “heterosexual imposters’’)

(3) therefore we were the “oppressors” of lesbians; (4) therefore “the lesbians”
couldn’t work on the same committee as Eva and me; (5) therefore they de-
manded that we be kicked out. During a highly emotional five-hour debate and
discussion, most of the members of the committee expressed hostility at what they
thought we did at the abortion meeting, but defended non-exclusion in the
CSLDC, in spite of their strong desire to involve these women in the committee. ®^

Hedda Garza, since expelled from the SWP on other grounds, commented
in a discussion article, “For a Better Relationship Between Word and Deed:”

Comrades have publicly stated that homosexuality is “transitional.” Transi-
tional to what? Why, to abolition of the family, of course! There’s only one prob-
lem. If Gay people are better people and it is more revolutionary to be Gay, then
not only the nuclear family is threatened but indeed the existence of all of
humanity— in which case, why bother about making a socialist revolution!

Woman comrades attending all-woman parties are sharply chastised if they
don’t care to dance with other women, and are definitely made to feel that they
are backward if they, too, as so many others have done, don’t declare themselves
man-haters and lesbians. Confessions of newly acquired homosexuality have
become a regular event, as though it were a fine model, a badge of honor, and
worse yet, as though comrades who would rather “fight than switch” are somehow
not true-blue Bolsheviks. All of this hasn’t the faintest resemblance to a “probe”
into Gay Liberation.

On April 24th, the Gay Contingent, or at least a large section of it, went up on
a hill facing the crowd, over to one side of the speakers’ platform, about a city
block away. They proceeded to put on what can only be described as a sex circus
for the benefit of the masses of people facing the speakers’ microphones. They
cavorted and carried on, making sexual gestures and freely fondling each other
in a most intimate style. I will not go into a graphic description of the proceed-
ings, but suffice it to say that if two hundred or so heterosexual comrades lined
up facing the public and carried on in that fashion, they would be expelled from
the party. ®^

Committee to Defend Artistic and
Intellectual Freedom in Iran

The Committee for Artistic and Intellectual Freedom in Iran— CAIFI— is
a minor SWP front headquartered at 853 Broadway, room 414, New York,
N.Y. 10003. This is a room which is part of the office suite of the SWP/YSA
New York City headquarters — room 412 is the main door.

The Committee for Artistic and Intellectual Freedom in Iran — CAIFI —
developed from a Socialist Workers Party 1972-73 effort to prevent deporta-
tion of one of its non-U. S. members, Babak Zahraie. Zahraie was a member

of both the Young Socialist Alliance and the SWP, and led a small Trotskyist
faction in the lranian Students Association, U.S.A., the U.S. branch of an
internationally active revolutionary student organization, Zahraie was not
deported because while a student at the University of Washington in Seattle,
he married a U.S. citizen, Kathy Camile Sledge, who like Zahraie was also a
dual SWP and YSA member.®'^

According to his defense committee, Zahraie entered the United States in
1967; and after attending high school in Turlock, Calif., and Stanislaus State
College transferred to the University of Washington, Seattle, in 1969, where
he became head of the Iranian Student Association chapter. The militant ISA
expelled its Trotskyist members 3 years ago. The ISA’s Maoists have disrupted
CAIFI meetings from time to time.

Zahraie, now a national field secretary of CAIFI, had violated Immigra-
tion laws by traveling to Canada as a resident alien and member of a subver-
sion organization, the SWP. Kathy Sledge Zahraie, now Kathy Sledge-
Lovgren (Fred Lovgren was an SWP Congressional candidate in 1974 in
Washington)^^ has claimed she was “harassed” by an FBI investigation of her
SWP membership when she applied for a Federal job.®’

During 1973 CAIFI led a campaign for the release of an Iranian militant,
Reza Baraheni, who was jailed by Iranian authorities for 3 months in the
fall of 1973. Baraheni is now a U.S. resident and a CAIFI “chairperson.”
Baraheni is one of CAIFI’s most active public speakers against the govern-
ment of Iran. He testified before the House Subcommittee on International
Organizations on September 3, 1976.

Caroline Lund led the workshop on CAIFI work, “Defense of Iranian poli-
tical prisoners,” at the 1975 SWP National Convention.®® Two Iranians who
are members of the SWP-led LTF minority serve on the Fourth Interna-
tional’s International Executive Committee using the names “Ahmed” and
“Cyrus.”®®

According to the CAIFI newsletter for March 1976, CAIFI officers include:

Chairpersons: Dr. Reza Baraheni, Kay Boyle; Vice Chairpersons: Ervand Ab-
rahamian, iMahmoud Sayrafiezadeh, Allan Silver; National Secretary: Moham-
mad B. Falsafi; Field Secretaries: Bahram Atai, Fairborz Khasha, BabakZahraie.

The same publication lists the following signers of a statement in support
of CAIFI and Baraheni:

Dore Ashton, chair of bd., USLA Justice Comm.

Nan Bailey, nat’l chair, YSA.

Eric Bentley, author.

Kay Boyle, author.

Richard Butler, National Council of churches.

Chuck Cairns, prof. Queens College.

Helen Cairns, prof. Queens College.

Peter Camejo, Pres. Candidate SWP.

Noam Chomsky, prof. MIT.

Jack Clark, Democratic Socialist Organizing Comm.

Rep. John Conyers, Mich.

Douglas Dowd, prof. San Jose State.

Tom Foley, Daily World.

Rep. Donald Fraser, Minn.

Irene Gendzier, prof. Boston U.

Ann Gregory, TAPOL.

Rep. MichaelJ. Harrington, Mass.

Michael Harrington, Democratic Socialist Organizing Comm.

Nat Hentoff, Writer.

Iranian Students Association (Democratic), Austin.

Iranian Students Association (Democratic), Houston.

Iranian Students Society, Philadelphia.

Denise Levertov, poet.

Don Luce, Dir., Clergy and Laity Concerned.

Jeffery Madder, Exec. Dir. AFT 1423.

Sam Manuel, Student Coalition Against Racism.

Paul Martin, Dir. of Earl Hall, Columbia U.

Ivan Morris, chair of bd., Amnesty International USA.

National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

Willie Mae Reid, V. Pres. Candidate, SWP.

Muriel Rukeyser, Pres. American PEN.

Liz Schenklyn, The Matriarchy.

Syd Stapleton, Nat’l. Secty. Political Rights Defense Fund.

Rep. Pete Stark, Calif.

I. F. Stone, author.

Tom Tobin, Pres. Student Senate, Teachers College, Columbia U.
George Wald, Prof. Harvard U.

Ruth Wald.

Howard Zinn, Prof. Boston U.

SWP Role in the “Peace” Movement

Trotskyites are not pacifists. During the Vietnam war the Socialist Workers
Party played a major role in the “anti-war” movement. The SWP was not for
“peace”; they were for an American defeat. This position was consistent with
the traditional Trotskyite role of supporting Communist aggression against
the free world.

Pierre Frank, member of the International Executive Committee of the
Fourth International, wrote a letter to the 1971 SWP National Convention
praising the SWP for its role in the anti- Vietnam movement. On behalf of the
United Secretariat of the Fourth International, Frank wrote:

First of all I express to you the attention and the passion with which the inter-
national Trotskyist movement in its entirety follows the action against the Viet-
nam war waged in the U.S.A. and in which you, the S.W.P piny such an im-
portant role. It is this mass mobilization increasingly large and increasingly firm
to “Bring the GIs home now” which, after the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese
people, contributed decisively to sap at the determination of American imperial-
ism and to paralyse its forces. This anti-war activity must not stop for one minute,
even if the victory of the Vietnamese revolution seems imminent. It must continue
in the U.S.A. as in the whole world to prevent American imperialism from mak-
ing an orderly retreat, to insure that its defeat henceforth inevitable should be the
worst possible.

A letter from the SWP -controlled National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC)
addressed to its large mailing list and dated April 29, 1971, said, “We believe
that April 24 will prove to be a turning point in the fight to end the Indochina
war.”’i Note that at no time did they advise the supporters of the organization
that their real desire was an American defeat and a North Vietnamese Com-
munist victory.

The bank records of NPAC which were subpoenaed by the House Commit-
tee on Internal Security showed that those authorized to sign checks for the
organization were all SWP members.’^ As of February 1, 1971, Cathy Per-
kus and Syd Stapleton were listed as president and secretary-treasurer,
respectively. As of May 10, 1971, the bank records showed Sydney Stapleton,

president, and Patricia Grogan, secretary-treasurer.’^

Through a series of factional maneuvers, the SWP/YSA grouping was able
to take control of the Student Mobilization Committee— SMC. An interesting
insight into how a minority can be organized to take control of a group was
provided in a letter to members of the YSA dated January 21, 1970, and
marked “Confidential: Not to leave your possession.” The letter was signed
by SWP Political and National Committee member Gus Horowitz and SWP
member Susan LaMont.’"^

P.O. Box 471, Cooper Station,

New York, N. Y., January 21, 1970.

CONFIDENTIAL: Not to Leave Your Possession
Dear Larry; Because of the importance of the Cleveland antiwar conference,
the east coast and midwest locals should mobilize for it. The west coast and south-
ern locals should send at least the leading comrades active in antiwar work. Please
send the N.O. a list of those who will be attending from your local. More infor-
mation on our intervention will be forthcoming.

Comrades should plan on full fraction meetings on Saturday and Sunday morn-
ings in Cleveland. In addition, each local should elect one representative to be on
the steering committee for our national fraction. The steering committee will
meet frequently during the conference. The comrade on it from a given local will
be responsible for keeping in touch with the other comrades from that local.

It is likely that the SMC will hold a national steering committee meeting on
Friday evening. Everyone who is a representative to that body from a local SMC
chapter should plan to arrive in Cleveland on Friday. More information on this
meeting will be sent out later.

The antiwar conference will most likely be the largest in the history of the SMC,
and will include numerous opponent tendencies in attendance. It is important
that all comrades have a clear understanding of our functioning in this type of
situation, which will be in a strictly centralist manner. Much of the YSA member-
ship has joined since the time of the last conference, so the local leadership should
take on the responsibility of explaining in more detail; (1) our political goals, and
(2) the nature of our intervention in the conference. This will also be explained
at the fraction meetings, which all should attend.

Comradely,

Gus Horowitz,

National Antiwar Steering Committee.

Susan LaMont,

National Secretary.

The Socialist Workers Party subordinates everything to building mass re-
spectable support for its activities. To do this it needs respectable names as
sponsors of its fronts. In 1970-71, the SWP needed the support of United
Auto Workers official Paul Schrade for NPAC. At that time an SWP mem-
ber, Tom Cagle was leading a wildcat strike against the orders of Schrade. He
, was ordered by the SWP leadership to cease his strike activity. As Cagle de-

^ scribed his problem with the SWP leadership:

My work at Fremont during the strike conflicted with and embarrassed their
V efforts to “win over” the UAW western regional director, Paul Schrade, into their

i anti-war coalition (which subsequently has been accomplished with much gleeful

! handclapping by the right wing revisionist forces in our party’s leadership clus-

' tered around Jack Barnes). This same “liberal anti-war” Paul Schrade went on

after that first stormy night of our strike to establish a virtual dictatorship over our

( local by abolishing all meetings inventing a phony “red bomb plot” in order to
justify a large goon squad armed with baseball bats to guard the union hall and
prevent contact with outside supporters of our strike. Forming a liaison committee
to co-ordinate between management and the Fremont police department on all
' phases of “riot control.” When the United Action Caucus, minus SWP support,

attempted to counteract these dictatorial methods of outright intimidation by
calling for a massive strike support rally to be held on the union’s parking lot,
this same liberal, anti-war Paul Schrade armed 70 goons with baseball bats, called
out the Fremont police force and 200 Bay Area Mobile Tact squad in full riot gear
in the ultimate intimidation forcing the UAC to call off its scheduled rally to
avoid bloodshed.’^

Cagle noted plaintively:

It would have been interesting to observe comrade Barnes and his followers
^ reaction to this piece of treachery. While the party attempted to blind, gag. and

tie my hands so I could not give a lead in this strike I still managed to get the floor
at the contract ratification meeting and speak out against treacherous sellout and
betrayal by our union leadership using the one at a time strike strategy and
sharply call Schrade to task for his dictatorial methods and called for a massive no
vote on the contract.

The Socialist Workers Party leadership sent a top SWP official, Tom
Kerry, to Cagle’s branch — the Berkeley, Calif., branch— to convince him to
stop his strike activity. Kerry threatened him by saying:

You’d better think very seriously, Tom C., about what you’re saying, whether
you really believe what you’re saying. If you really believe what you’re saying, then
this is not the party for you. I’m sorry.’®

A short time later Cagle was out of the SWP and had joined a rival Trotsky-
ite group, the Workers League.”

Chapter 4

The Fourth International
Debate on Terrorism

In 1961, 2 years prior to the reunification of the Fourth International,
Argentine Trotskyites were sent to Peru to aid Trotskyite leader Hugo Blanco
in his revolutionary terrorist campaign. In 1962 Blanco led a raid on a police
station in which three police officers were killed. ' Blanco was captured in
May, 1963 and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Peruvian
Gkivemment granted him an amnesty in 1970 and expelled him in 1971 for
continuing his revolutionary activities.

In 1962 the Argentine Trotskyite movement led by Nahuel Moreno sent the
first group of cadres to Cuba for terrorist training.^ Some of the Latin Ameri-
can sections of the Fourth International engaged in terrorist activities during
the 1960’s, often in close collaboration with Castroite groups promoted by the
Cuban Government.

At the Ninth World Congress of the Fourth International held in 1969, a
resolution was passed ratifying the turn toward “armed struggle,’’ a term the
Trotskyites use to cover all violent acts including terrorism. The resolution
stated:

Take advantage of every opportunity not only to increase the number of rural
guerrilla nuclei but also to promote forms of armed struggle especially adapted to
certain zones (for example, the mining zones in Bolivia) and to undertake
actions in the big cities aimed both at striking the nerve centers (key points in the
economy and transport, etc.) and at punishing the hangmen of the regime as
well as achieving propagandistic and psychological successes (the experience of
the European resistance to Nazism would be helpful in this regard).*

While the majority of the Fourth International supported terrorism and
armed struggle as a tactic, a minority, led by the SWP, argued against the
premature use of violence. The debate still continues.

The two major factions in the Fourth International are the International
Majority Tendency — (IMT) — led by Ernest Mandel, Livio Maitan and Pierre
Frank, and the Leninist-Trotskyist Faction -(LTF)- led by Joseph Hansen
and other SWP functionaries.

The Socialist Workers Party does not reject the use of violence in principle,
but argues only that this may not be an appropriate time. As Peter Camejo, a
member of the SWP Political Committee, stated in an answer to Ernest
Mandel— Comrade Germain:

Comrade Germain leaves the impression that Lenin opposed terrorism but
supported guerrilla warfare. Lenin’s approach was not that simple.

Guerrilla warfare is only one form of the utilization of arms. It cannot be cor-
rectly counterposed to terrorism.

The word “terrorism” is commonly used to mean the politics of those who be-
lieve that violent actions against individual bourgeois figures can bring about
social change, precipitate a revolutionary situation, or electrify or help mobilize
the masses even if undertaken by isolated individuals or groups. Terrorism in that
sense is rejected by the Marxist movement. But under the conditions of civil war,
terrorist acts can have a totally different political import. Their isolated nature
fades. In the process of an insurrection, terrorist acts may be advantageous to the
workers movement. They may also be damaging. But terrorist acts that are not
part of a generalized mass armed struggle remain isolated and are detrimental to
the workers movement.

SWP National Secretary Jack Barnes accused Mandel of “attempts to
smuggle terrorism under the name ‘urban guerrilla war,’ into the traditions
of Leninism. * *

Mary-Alice Waters, another member of the SWP Political Committee,
characterized the debate in the International as follows:

The majority held that they too were for building parties but that revolutionary
parties could only be constructed today in Latin America if the Trotskyists
proved themselves the best guerrilla fighters, arms in hand. Such was the only
path to either the vanguard or the masses.

The minority felt that such a strategy could only lead to the political miseduca-
tion of the entire world movement and the decimation of the small Trotskyist
parties and cadres in Latin America. Logically it would have to be extended be-
yond Latin America to other parts of the world.

Other supporters of the Latin American majority document have tried to shift
the discussion onto the axis of “for or against armed struggle.” We reject any im-
plication that that is what the discussion is really about. If supporters of the
minority view were against armed struggle, they would be Social Democrats or
Stalinists, not Trotskyists. What we reject is the strategy of “pick up the gun” as
the road to power. As a strategy it stands in the way of the construction of mass
revolutionary parties throughout Latin America, and that is what the debate is
about.®

The Socialist Workers Party has described the leadership of the IMT
majority faction of the Fourth International in rather colorful terms. Accord-

inff to the old-time SWP Political and National Committee member Tom
Kerry:

There is, of course, a division of labor among the Mandel-Maitan-Frank trio.
Ernest Mandel is the ideologue of the group and among the “Old Husbands,” is
the one who fathers the political documents, although they, too, often bear the
anonymous authorship of “lEC Majority Tendency.”

Pierre Frank is the org-spetz, who draws on his decades of experience to beget —
in the name of “democratic centralism” of course — the belligerent, factional
documents, that deal with the “organization question.”

Livio Maitan, since he fell from grace following the debacle of his Latin
America line, is the “trouble-shooter” for the faction, the faction “fireman,” who
is dispatched to the “hot spots.”’

The Canadian section of the Fourth International, the League for Socialist
Action— LS A— has also split on the issue of whether or not to support terror-
ism at this time. One faction called the Revolutionary Communist Tendency
has left the LSA and joined a rival Canadian Trotskyite group, the Revolu-
tionary Marxist Group -RMG. The RMG is a sympathizing group of the
Fourth International.

Before the split, the Revolutionary Communist Tendency argued:

As Marxists, we do not believe in individual terror because it underrates the
class struggle. We instead believe in increasing the struggle, in mass terrorism!

Let us make it perfectly clear to the CEC (Central Executive Committee) — that
for Marxists, kidnappings can never constitute a strategy; a kidnapping is a tac-
tical question. And further, the resolution on Latin America adopted by the 9th
World Congress allowed for the employment of such a tactic within the general
framework of the armed struggle; the resolution states that it is necessary to
“undertake actions in the big cities aimed at striking the nerve centers . . . and at
punishing the hangmen of the regime as well as achieving propagandistic and
psychological successes", (our emphasis— RCT)®

The leadership of the LSA answered;

Lenin, of course, did not reject terrorism “in principle” — as the supporters of
the RCT have often pointed out. Marxists do not reject any method of struggle “in
principle.” We judge each method according to one criterion: “will this method,
used at this time and in these circumstances, advance the cause of proletarian
revolution?” If the answer is yes, then we use the method if we are able. If the
answer is no, then we don’t. We are concerned only with effectiveness, and any-
one who reads the works of Marxism on terrorism, including the citations from
Lenin made above, will see that effectiveness is the only criterion used.^

Terrorist activities have been conducted by sections of the Fourth Interna-
tional in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Spain, France, England, and Ireland, and
the Middle East.

Chapter 5

Latin American Terrorism

Argentina

The first section of the Fourth International to adopt terrorism as a tactic
was the group in Argentina called Palabra Obrera, led by Nahuel Moreno.
Moreno arranged for Argentine Trotskyite cadres to be trained in Cuba in all
aspects of revolutionary armed struggle, including terrorism, as early as
1962.* This was consistent with the policy of “entrism” developed by Pablo
and Mandel. Trotskyites discovered among the membership of Communist
organizations had been expelled, or in some cases were murdered by the
Stalinist Communists. For example, 500 Trotskyite Vietnamese cadres were
killed by the Stalinists under Ho Chi Minh.^ Only the Cuban Communists
accepted the Trotskyites as allies.

In 1961, terrorist acts were carried out by the Trotskyites in Tucuman.
Activities included an “expropriation,” the euphemism for a bank robbery.®
In 1963, Palabra Obrera merged with the Castroite group, Frente Revolu-
cionario Indoamericano Popular, FRIP. This group pressed for an escalation
of “armed struggle.” In 1965, the organization was renamed Partido Revolu-
cionario de los Trabaj adores, PRT. The PRT leaders were Moreno and
Mario Roberto Santucho.

Under the Santucho leadership, a PRT cadre in Tucuman led violent street
mobs throwing Molotov cocktails and firing pistols at police officers and
stations.^

In 1968 the PRT split over a combination of personality and tactical dis-
putes. Santucho’s group, the PRT-Combatiente, openly espoused and en-
gaged in terrorist activities. The PRT-Verdad, headed by Moreno, played
down the armed struggle aspects of revolutionary activity, and emphasized
electoral action.

The Ninth World Congress of the Fourth International held in 1969 recog-
nized the Santucho group as the official Argentine section of the Fourth Inter-
national and the Moreno group as a sympathizing section. Since that time the
Moreno group merged with the Coral faction of the Argentine Socialist Party
to form the Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores, PST— the Argentine
Socialist Workers Party.

The Tenth World Congress of the Fourth International held in 1974 voted
to continue the PST as a sympathizing section although they were allowed to
participate and vote at the Congress. A secret resolution was passed with the
admonition that it not be published in the public press of the International.
The resolution passed by the proterrorist IMT majority in the World Congress
excoriates the PST for dodging “the problems of armed struggle, of the vio-
lent destruction of the bourgeois state, of the formation of workers’ militias”
and for using “ambiguous formulas in its press that give the impression that
the proletariat could win simply through propaganda against the army,
directed to soldiers and noncommissioned officers, without necessarily form-
ing armed detachments of the proletariat and without armed confrontations
with the bourgeois repressive apparatus.” (The full text of the resolution
appears in the appendix following this section.)

The Santucho faction held a secret congress on July 19-20, 1970, at which
the decision was made to organize their armed units into the Ejercito Revolu-
cionario Popular, ERP, which was to be tightly controlled by the political
leadership of the PRT. The PRT resolution stated in part:

The Central Committee and executive committee of the party will make up the
collective leadership conducting the war. It will appoint the national military
secretary, the military leaders of the various units, the respective political
commissioners and the military committee of the party. In the countryside,
these military leaders will make up the branch and section executive committees
of the party. On all levels the cells of the party that are in the army will assure
that the military directives coming from the Central Committee and the executive
committee are steadfastly and correctly applied.

Groups and individuals from outside the party who join the ERP will do so
under the condition that they accept the party’s military leadership and the politi-
cal commissioners it designates.®

From 1971 through mid- 1975 the ERP was the most successful revolu-
tionary terrorist group in the Western Hemisphere, raising many millions of
dollars in ransom from kidnap victims. The ERP made a specialty of assassi-
nating aged retired military officers, ambushing police and small military
units, and robbing banks for additional funds. Executives and employees of
multinational corporations were made special targets for ERP kidnappings
and assassinations.

Santucho himself was captured by the Argentine police, but in August
1972, led a spectacular jailbreak from Trelew prison. Santucho and some
guerrillas hijacked an airplane and fled over the Andes to Chile where they re-
ceived a warm welcome from Chile’s Marxist- Leninist President Allende who
aided them in traveling to Cuba where they were given a very warm welcome
and refuge.®

In 1973, Santucho led his PRT/ERP out of the Fourth International. A
very small faction remained in the FI and continued terrorist activity. This

group, which called itself the ERP — Red Faction, kidnapped in May 1973 a
business executive, Aaron Beilinson, and received $1 million for his release.
Beilinson was released on June 3, 1973. The ERP-Red Faction turned
$100,000 of this sum over to Livio Maitan, an official of the Fourth Interna-
tional. Half of the money was to go toward Fourth International operations,
and half was to be transferred to the MIR terrorists in Chile. ^

Less than 2 months after receiving the extortion money, Maitan appeared
at the national convention of the Socialist Workers Party, held in Ohio,
August 5-10, 1973. Maitan, attending the convention as a leading FI-IEC
official, spoke in support of terrorism as an immediate tactic at the conven-
tion.®

A series of Argentine police raids during 1975 broke the back of the Red
Faction which had changed its name to the Revolutionary Communist
League, LCR.®

The Santucho majority of the ERP became the cornerstone of a Latin
American “terrorist international” called the Revolutionary Coordinating
Committee, JCR. This apparatus was created late in 1973 to coordinate the
activities of the Castroite Tupamaros of Uruguay, the MIR of Chile— which
also had a Castroite orientation but a Trotskyite origin — and the ELN of
Bolivia, a Trotskyite successor to Che Guevara’s group of the same name.

In June, 1974, $5 million that had been extorted by the ERP from the
EXXON Corp. as a result of the kidnapping of Victor Samuels, EXXON
operations manager in Argentina, was divided among the three other JCR
terrorist groups.*®

Each of the JCR groups supplied cadres to the others to engage in terrorist
activities throughout Latin America. The JCR has also established three
European offices in Rome, Lisbon, and Paris to maintain contact with other
terrorist organizations.

Effective action by the governments of Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, and
Bolivia has wiped out a substantial portion of the JCR leadership. On July 19,
1976, Mario Roberto Santucho was killed in a shootout with Argentinian
counter-insurgency forces in the town of Mercedes in Buenos Aires province.

The PST, led by Moreno, serves as a major force in the Leninist -
Trotskyist Faction of the Fourth International. However, a dispute has
developed between the Moreno organization and the U.S. Socialist Workers
Party which controls the faction. This has resulted in the possibility that
Moreno may pull his group out of the Fourth International, thus greatly re-
ducing the strength of the Socialist Workers Party’s LTF.**

Bolivia

The Bolivian section of the Fourth International, the Partido Obrero
Revolucionario, POR, is headed by Hugo Gonzales Moscoso. He is a leader of

the proterrorism now IMT faction of the Fourth International. In 1967, the
POR established an underground terrorist armed branch, the ELN, which
was named for the group led by Che Guevara in Bolivia which had been
wiped out that year.*^

Hugo Gonzales Moscoso wrote in the September 22, 1969, issue of Intercon-
tinental Press, that the POR and ELN had suffered severe losses in combat
with the police, but that on July 14 they had resumed activity by murdering a
man who had allegedly assisted the police in tracking down Guevara’s
group.

Martine Knoeller, a leader of the IMT faction in the Fourth International,
boasted in 1973 that “the Bolivian comrades adopted their turn toward
armed struggle long before the Ninth World Congress,” of the Fourth Inter-
national.*® Although decimated by police and military actions, the Bolivian
Trotskyites continue to attempt to organize among the tin miners, particu-
larly in the Siglo district.

Chile

The Chilean Trotskyites played a major role in the founding of the MIR—
Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria-in August 1965. The MIR was
formed as a proterrorism, proguerrilla warfare coalition of Trotskyites and
Castroites from the Chilean Socialist and Communist Parties. Under Salvador
Allende’s government, the MIR served as Allende’s brownshirts and shock
troops. The Chilean President’s nephew, Andres Pascal Allende, the son of
his sister, Laura, is a member of the MIR Central Committee.

When the Allende regime was deposed in September 1973, many MIRistas
fled to Cuba and Argentina where they became part of the JCR— Revolu-
tionary Coordinating Council -with the ERP, the Bolivian ELN, and the
remnants of the Tupamaros.

At the opening of the 10th World Congress in February 1974, Ernest Man-
del moved to make Trotskyite MIR leader Luis Vitale, under arrest by the
Chilean military government, honorary chairman of the Congress.*"* The
motion carried.

The overt publications of the Fourth International have devoted considera-
ble space to promoting the MIR. The November 19, 1973, edition of Inter-
continental Press carried an interview with a Chilean Trotskyite who pointed
out that the MIR had been founded “by some of our comrades.” The May 6,
1974, issue of that magazine carried an interview with MIR Central Commit
tee member Miguel Enriquez who had been interviewed in France for Rouge,
the newspaper of the Ligfue Communiste Revolutionnaire LCR, the French
Fourth International section. Miguel Enriquez was killed in a shootout with
Chilean police on October 31, 1974. His “companion,” Carmen Castillo, was

wounded, arrested, and shortly afterwards deported. She commutes now
between Cuba and Europe and is a member of the top MIR leadership. The
brother of Miguel Enriquez was reported in 1975 to have become a top com-
mander of the ERP in Argentina, leading a JCR-terrorist unit. The JCR’s
Paris apparatus has claimed Enriquez has disappeared and speculates that he
may have been arrested or killed.

defended itself against repression ♦ * USLA termed the visa denial “a
brazen pretext used by Washington to justify its undemocratic exclusion of a
former political prisoner whom organizations representing tens of thousands
of Americans have demanded the right to hear.

Peru

Trotskyite revolutionary armed struggle began in Peru in 1962 by the
Frente Izquierdista Revolutionaria— FIR— led by Hugo Blanco-Galdos.
Blanco sought to utilize land seizures by Peruvian Indian peasant unions as a
preliminary to the “necessary” armed struggle. Blanco’s FIR was assisted by
Argentinian Trotskyite cadres sent to Peru by Nahuel Moreno.

During an arms raid on a police post in 1962 led by Blanco, two police
officers were shot to death. Hunted by the authorities, Blanco was appre-
hended in 1963. At his trial Blanco admitted to having killed a total of three
police officers.!® He received a 25-year sentence. Blanco was released in a
general political amnesty in December 1969; he resumed revolutionary
organizing activities and was deported to Argentina which soon did the same
for identical reasons. Blanco was then given refuge by the Allende govern-
ment in Chile, which was deposed in September 1973. Blanco then lived in
Europe and acted as an important figure in the Fourth International lEC.

Blanco returned to Peru in December 1975, to resume work with the
Peruvian section of the Fourth International, the Partido Socialista de los
Trabajadores. Blanco was again deported from Peru in July 1976.!’

In an analysis of the failure of his terrorist movement which appeared in In-
tercontinental Press, September 30, 1968, Blanco said he had not developed
a party organization “rooted in the masses on a national scale.” Blanco criti-
cized rival Peruvian Castroite terrorist groups, the MIR and ELN, which were
based among radicalized students, as having the “very prevalent attitude of
underrating the workers’ and peasants’ mass movements. * * * In Peru this
struggle offers the shortest and surest road to armed insurrection.”

Blanco is now allied with the minority Leninist -Trotskyist Faction on the
International Executive Committee. The Socialist Workep^4Hffty~and>4ts
front, the U.S. Committee for Justice to Latin Americ^nrPmitical Prisoners—
USLA — attempted during 1975 and 1976 to brin^ Blanco into the United
States for a speaking tour and to bolster its pojsifions. Blanco’s application for
a visa was turned down. /

In a press release dated March 22, 197,6, the USLA characterized Blanco’s
crime — which was murdering police^ as “a political one, the crime of
organizing landless peasants in a lo^ overdue land-reform movement that

/ 48

▼

Chapter 6

Terrorist Activities in Europe

The Trotskyite Communist Fourth International not only has been
vociferously supporting terrorist activities— bombings, kidnappings, assassi-
nations, and armed robberies, “expropriations” as the revolutionaries term
them — by non-Troskyite revolutionaries and nationalist groups, but also has
conducted terrorist activities itself.

France

During the 1960’s, the French section of the Fourth International led by
Pierre Frank was able to recruit some of the violence-oriented New Left.
These New Leftists recruited by Frank, were similar in their outlook and de-
sire for street violence to the SDS Weatherman faction which led major street
riots in New York, Berkeley, Boston, and Chicago during 1969 and 1970
before disappearing underground.

In April 1966, a New Left segment split away from the Communist Party
controlled Union Estudiants Communistes de France and declared itself
Trotskyist. It affiliated with Pierre Frank’s Fourth International section which
was then called the Parti Communiste Internationaliste. The youth group,
led by Alain Krivine, was then called the Jeunesse Communiste Revolution-
naire and expressed its strong admiration for Castro and Che Guevara.

For their prominent role in leading the student and worker riots which
nearly precipitated a civil war, in April 1968, the French Government out-
lawed the Trotskyite group. However, the Trotskyites merely changed the
names of their organizations and continued to function. The Jeunesse Com-
muniste Revolutionnaire became the Cercles Rouge — Red Circle — then
changed its name to Ligue Communiste. For its involvement in continuing
violence, the Ligue was dissolved again in June 1973, by the French Govern-
ment. However, the Ligue merely changed its name again to Front Com-
muniste Revolutionnaire, LCR. LCR’s top leaders include the aging Pierre
Frank, Gerard Vergeat, Alain Krivine, Charles Micheloux, and Daniel
Bensaid.*

The involvement of the French Trotskyites in terrorism was revealed by
SWP Political and National Committee member, Mary- Alice Waters, alias
Therese, who is one of the SWP members on the Fourth International United
Secretariat. On behalf of her minority faction. Waters submitted a report
attacking the “terrorism now” position of the Fourth International majority
to the December 2-6, 1972, United Secretariat meeting.

Incidentally at the opening of her report Waters listed “six comrades who
are members of the United Secretariat — Adair, Hans, Juan, Pedro, State-
man, and Therese. ”2 Comparison with other internal Fourth International
documents indicates that Adair is the Canadian Alan Harris who was sent by
the Fourth International to Great Britain to help lead the British section;
Hans is an alias for SWP National Secretary, Jack Barnes; Juan was Joseph
Hansen; Pedro is Peter Camejo and Stateman is apparently Barry Sheppard.

The Waters report which was of course rejected by the majority attacked
“violent minority actions”:

She wrote:

Let us turn now to one of the most important questions being debated in the
European movement— a question so vital that it can prove fateful for our sec-
tions in the immediate future. The issue is what several comrades of the Ligue
Communiste refer to as the need for “deliberate somewhat voluntaristic initia-
tive by the vanguard” to reintroduce “violence” into the class struggle. [See
Appendix, “The Debate in the Ligue Communiste.”]

This idea is not developed clearly in the European document, but the essence
is included in Section 19, which states: “The spirit in which our sections will have
to educate the entire mass vanguard moreover, is this: to show the bourgeoisie
in practice that the price it will have to pay for any attempt to establish an open
dictatorship will be a civil war in which both camps will use arms.” (p. 25. Em-
phasis added.)

One interpretation of this line has already been initiated in France to a suffi-
cient degree to indicate what it entails.

The May 13, 1972, issue of Rouge, the official paper of the French section of
the Fourth International, prominently featured a “last minute” news bulletin that
announced:

“In response to the intensification of imperialist aggression in Indochina, on
Wednesday, May 10, at 6:30 a.m. revolutionary militants attacked the offices of
Honeywell-Bull and the machine display at the Trade Center. Molotov cocktails
were thrown and the machines were seriously damaged. Simultaneously, a similar
action took place against the Toulouse headquarters of Honeywell- Bull.

“The Ligue Communiste supports and salutes the revolutionary militants who
have thus dfemonstrated their determination not to let the new arrogance of
imperialism goJmanswered. By theseaetstheyhav^enounced the war profiteers
who furnish the rnkteiiel for impemlist aggression. And they have demonstrated
their solidarity with the Tnd^hinese people — at the v^y moment when the
French government was trying vainly to ban the mass demonstrations that took
place Wednesday night.” \

On September 2, 1972, Rouge carried another special article, which approv-
ingly reproduced the press release issued by a commando squad that firebombed
the Argentine embassy in Paris, following the murder of the Argentine comrades
in Trelew. As Rouge reported it:

“In France in the dawn hours of August 25 revolutionary Marxist militants
attacked the Argentine embassy with Molotov cocktails. The following com-
munique was issued by these revolutionists shortly after their actions:

“ ‘Today revolutionary Marxist militants attacked the Argentine embassy in
Paris. This symbolic action is part of the worldwide wave of protest developing in
the wake of the savage murder of sixteen unarmed Argentine revolutionists by the
mercenaries of Lanusse. On the defensive today politically, the imperialists and
their watchdogs are escalating their extortions and crimes in Latin America and
throughout the world.

“ ‘They will not go unpunished because the day is near when the Argentine and
Latin American masses, mobilized by their vanguard on the road of revolutionary
war, will sound the death knell of the murderers’ system and make them pay the
full retribution for their accumulated debt of blood.

“ ‘Long live the Argentine socialist revolution.

“ ‘Long live the Latin American revolution.

“ ‘Hasta la victoria siempre. Venceremos.

“ ‘Cuarta Intemacional’ ’’

The signature of the communique falsely gave the impression that this was an
action approved by the Fourth International and carried out by its forces.

“Cuarta Intemacional” is of course Fourth International. Despite Waters’
denial of responsibility, Pierre Frank, a leader of both the French section and
the International took full responsibility for the terrorist acts.

Waters went on to say,

The rationale for such actions has been explained at length in a number of
articles in Rouge.

For example, the June 10, 1972, issue carried an article entitled “Terrorism and
Revolution” by Daniel Bensaid, a member of the Political Bureau of the Ligue.
He states:

“As far as we’re concerned, we have not hesitated to resort to violent minority
actions when the actions were tied up with mass activity. In December 1970, at
the time of the Burgos verdict, the Ligue Communiste supported the attack of a
group of militants against the Bank of Spain, but that was parallel with leading
the mass campaign on behalf of the Basques threatened with death. We also led
actions against General Ky when he visited Paris, against the U.S. consulate, an
action that led to the indictment of Alain Krivine, and we supported the action
led by militants against the firms profiting from the U.S. war. But this was
parallel with systematic mass work on behalf of the Indochinese revolution, with-
in the framework of the FSI [Front Solidarite Indochine — Indochina Solidarity
Front] in particular.”

Such actions, we are told, have a basis in theory— the theory of the “dialectics
of mass violence and minority violence.” According to this “theory,” violent

actions organized by a small group can show the way, stimulate actions by the
masses of workers through raising their combativity, and prove to the workers that
they can and should use violence on a mass scale.

For example the Jime 10 article takes up the question of kidnapping factory
owners or supervisors. “It is clear that the occupation of a factory that mobilizes a
mass of workers to control the means of production and eventually passes over to
active administration has a far greater significance than the kidnapping of a
supervisor or a boss . . . But if the kidnapping expresses a genuine anger, if it is
not presented as an end in itself, a pure revolt, but rather as a means of breaking
up a passivity and resignation of the masses by beginning to overthrow its hier-
archical idols, then kidnapping can be a correct initiative the workers ought to de-
fend and even in certain cases promote.”

Waters argued, however, that Trotskyites should engage in violence at the
proper time :

The Leninist method of educating the working masses in effective anti-
capitalist action is not through the exemplary action of small, clandestine
groups, violent or otherwise. It is by organizing and leading the masses in
struggle to achieve their demands. As those struggles unfold, the masses them-
selves come to understand the need to defend their interests against the violence of
the rulers. As that point approaches, we help the masses to organize their defense
of their struggles.

As in every other aspect of the struggles of the masses, we play a vanguard role.
We take the initiative within the masses on such questions as the formation of
strike pickets and workers militias or, in certain situations, guerrilla units to de-
fend the mass struggles of the peasants. We take these initiatives'^s mcmheK of
the mass organizations, and in the name of the mass organizations, even if initi^ly
few besides ourselves are involved. The course followed by Hugo Blanco in Peiu
and the course followed by the Trotskyist leaders of the 1934 teamsters strike in
Minneapolis offer instructive examples . ^ \

Pierre Frank answered;

The use of force is not in itself terrorism and it is necessary to take care not to
use the critiques made in our classics, for example against the Narodniks, incor-
rectly. Let’s listen to what Trotsky himself said:

“It must be said that the Narodnik terrorists took their own words very seri-
ously: bomb in hand they sacrificed their lives. We argued with them: ‘under cer-
tain circumstances a bomb is an excellent thing but we should first clarify our
minds.’ ” (P. 79, In Defense of Marxism.)

Under certain circumstances a bomb is an excellent thingl Under certain cir-
cumstances, Trotsky, according to Comrade Mary- Alice, fell prey to adventurism
and terrorism.

The article in question denounces two “adventurist” actions, the one against
the Argentine Embassy and the one against Honeywell- Bull. They were “in no
way related to the needs of the masses or of any section of the masses.” (P. 25)

In our opinion, the crime of Trelew required an immediate response and, as

everyone knows, one cannot always summon up mass demonstrations. Thus the
question of a vigorous action was posed, and we were of the opinion that the
Trelew crime required more than a telegram or a customary gesture. But in the
question of Honeywell- Bull, one finds a problem posed that Comrade Mary- Alice
didn’t seem to suspect. Why did revolutionary militants attack this American firm
if not because it made material used against the Vietnamese revolution? We are
for the defense and victory of that revolution, of the workers state of Vietnam. On
this question we are not just for mass actions but also for the sabotage of the capi-
talist troops and of their armament: “The Fourth International has established
firmly that in all imperialist countries, independent of the fact as to whether they
are in alliance with the USSR or in a camp hostile to it, the proletarian parties
during the war must develop the class struggle with the purpose of seizing power.

At the same time the proletariat of the imperialist countries must not lose sight of
the interests of the USSR’s defense (or of that of colonial revolutions) and in case
of real necessity must resort to the most decisive action, for instance, strikes, acts
of sabotage, etc.’’ (P. 30, In Defense of Marxism.)

The action against Honeywell -Bull, symbolic as it has been, fell into this cate-
gory. It was “related to the needs” of the Vietnamese masses, and one can simply
regret that there weren’t more of them and more vigorous ones.

In peremptorily asserting that minority violence and mass violence cannot be
complementary, that they are politically contradictory. Comrade Mary- Alice re-
jects in toto all the actions taken on by the Ligue Communiste that had a minority
character. But the Ligue concretely showed the contrary within the framework of
solidarity actions toward the Indochinese revolution. On the day after the presi-
dential “elections” in Saigon, the Ligue clandestinely organized a demonstration
of 400 militants in front of the American consulate in Paris. This demonstration,
like the others (against the South Vietnamese consulate in Paris, Honeywell-
Bull . . .) politically prepared the January 20, 1973, demonstration, in the course
of which 15,000 demonstrators violently confronted the police in order to make
their way to the American Embassy. That demonstration even had an echo in the
ranks of the French CP. It represented a step forward in the anti-imperialist
mobilization. It would have been much more difficult to carry out if it hadn’t
been prepared by the Ligue. ^

Ernest Mandel, writing under his pseudonym Ernest Germain, answered
the charge that the French section wanted the terrorist violence to escalate
into guerrilla warfare. Mandel wrote:

We repeat: what we threaten the fascists with is not “guerrilla war,” but civil
war of the Spanish type, which, let us repeat again, was started by relatively
limited vanguard forces.^

Great Britain and Ireland

The British section of the Fourth International has always been under the
domination of the International movement. In 1963, the British section was

reorganized by the Fourth International and cadres were sent from Canada to
supervise the operations. Alan Harris was one of these and had his salary paid
by the Fourth International.®

The British section now called the International Marxist Group later com-
plained that Harris was being subsidized by the Socialist Workers Party to
carry out factional activities against the IMG leadership.’ The leadership of
the IMG support the pro-terrorist International Majority Tendency of the
Fourth International. Harris works with the SWP in the Leninist-Trotskyist
faction.

Ernest Mandel is now in complete control of the IMG. He even wrote the
political resolution for the 1976 IMG convention. That resolution was
adopted at the December 22-23, 1975 meeting of the United Secretariat of
the Fourth International and then presented to the English section.®

The IMG supports the terrorist activities of a small group in Ireland. This
organization called Saor Eire considers itself part of the IRA, but has en-
gaged in assassinations of other IRA members. A history of the relationship
between the IMG and Irish terrorists was given by SWP member, Gerry Foley,
in a lengthy discussion article entitled “The Test of Ireland.” Foley wrote:

The first sign of the IMG’s interest in the official republican movement came
when the May 1970 issue of the Red Note reprinted an interview with the official
leader Malachy McGurran from Intercontinental Press. Contacts seem to have
developed subsequent to that, leading to Comrade Purdie’s visit to- Belfast in July
1970 and to the official Ard Fheis in December 1970. But at the same time, the
IMG came in contact with, or began to take more seriously, a group of adven-
turers expelled from the republican movement in the 1960s. These adventurers
were associated with Gery Lawless, an “independent” Trotskyist who had broken
with the republican movement in 1955, accusing it of reluctance to begin the
guerrilla campaign for which it began preparing with the arms raids in the early
1950s. Many of them were ex-members of the Irish Workers Group, a hetero-
geneous grouping led by Comrade Lawless which disintegrated in early 1968. The
IMG’s interest in this group seemed to increase at the end of 1970 when Comrade
Lawless joined the IMG and became the co-leader of its Irish work.

An Irish ERP

In its January 1-15, 1971 issue, the Red Mole published an interview with a rep-
resentative of this grouping, Saor Eire, which offered a different version of the
movement toward politics in the official IRA. This interview was announced on a
cover with a picture of a guerrilla pointing a gun at the reader. In answer to a
question about the split in the republican movement, this anonymous spokesman
said:

“Well, we have seen the inevitability of such a split occurring for the last eight
years. We did not particularly favour it since, unfortunately, it happened over
wrong issues. In the official section, we have an amalgam of peaceful roadmen,
reformers, and left-wingers; and within the Provisionals, we have more militant
elements, but right-wing politics. In practice, we have found ourselves more

C.A

5 I
I I

closely aligned to the Provisionals; it is among those elements that we draw a lot of
our support.

“Of course, it is important to draw a distinction between the leadership and the
rank-and-file in both these organizations. Both leaderships seem equally opposed
to us and equally capable of spreading slanders about us, whereas with both rank-
and-files we have very much in common. We are grateful for the help that Cathal
Goulding, the chief of staff of the official IRA, sent in relation to Frank Keane’s
case. But we condemn unequivocally their actions in issuing disclaimers and
thereby helping police to finger our organization in the Arran Quay robbery.”

The representative described the origins of his organization in this way:

“I’ll have to go back to the ’60s and trace the development of the Republican
movement. After the failure of the mid- ’50s military campaign in the Six Coun-
ties, a certain amount of disillusionment set in within the IRA and Sinn Fein.
People saw the futility of a purely military campaign not backed up by some form
of political action. In the early ’60s some people connected with the London-
based ‘Irish Democrat’ joined the movement. Their Stalinist politics were not ac-
cepted overnight, but on account of the lack of clear-cut politics within the
Republican movement, the position was that any brand of politics was accepted.
With the influx of these people, political classes were started, which were good in
themselves, as they gave many members of the Republican movement their first
knowledge of left-wing politics; but hand in hand with the growing political
awareness, there began a running-down of the armed section, the IRA. This un-
fortunately led to a lot of people equating left-wing politics with reformism. Many
of our members at this stage started to voice their objections to this running down
of the IRA. These people were either dismissed on trumped-up charges or left of
their own accord. Other members saw through the politics of Stalinism and left on
a political basis.

“At this time too, many English-based revolutionary groups started to spring
up. People saw in these groups alternatives to the Irish Communist Party and to
the current Stalinist orientation of the Republican movement, and thought that
maybe, through such organisations, a new fusion could be made between left-
wing politics and the traditional military of Republicanism. Some people who had
been involved in the Trotskyist English-based Irish Workers’ Group formed an
important section of Saor Eire and began to form links with these dissident ele-
ments of the Republican movement. This resulted in a loose organization being
formed in Dublin about three to four years ago, which carried out some arms
raids and some bank raids in an attempt to try to get a militant politically
conscious, armed group off the ground.

“After these initial actions there was not such a mass movement toward this
grouping as was expected, since its actions were seen as more in the tradition of
the international revolutionary movement, as opposed to the Irish movement.
The next period was spent in discussion with various political groupings, and with
various members of the Republican movement, in an attempt to win them over to
this new concept of political action.”

The method by which this tiny adventurist group hoped to stimulate a “mass
movement” toward itself was explained as follows:

“Saor Eire is a left-wing armed group which is attempting to act as a fuse or
detonator to the Irish revolutionary struggle. It is attempting to step up the tempo
of development of political life. It is part of the Republican tradition but also
draws from the international revolutionary movement, both politically and in a
military sense. As opposed to past forms the Republican struggle took, Saor Eire is
centered around the cities and could be called an urban guerrilla group, inas-
much as it sees the main struggle taking place in the cities, and within the working
class directly.”

As for Saor Eire’s activities, although they did not exactly depend on mass
support, they were designed to win mass sympathy:

“Unfortunately due to publicity given to us by the bourgeois press, people seem
to think that we are only involved in robbing banks and living high lives, etc. etc.
This could not be further from the truth. We have robbed many banks and taken
responsibility for them. But we have also been involved in armed raids, in indus-
trial disputes, in direct confrontations vdth the state and its agents, also in local
disputes and tenants’ disputes. The money expropriated from the banks is used to
purchase arms and equipment for the forthcoming struggle in Ireland. A lot of
our finances have gone to aid the Catholic population of the North who have been
under attack from British imperialism. This took the form of money, ammuni-
tion, and equipment. The money is also used for the maintenance of our revolu-
tionaries in the field, who, at the moment, number quite a few. It is also used for
political education, the arrangement of classes, camps, and all of the other
running expenses that any armed group is liable to. We re also involved in mili-
tary training of members of other left-wing groups in Ireland, people from the
North, and the broad Republican movement, who have not been able to get this
training within their own organizations.” (Emphasis in original.)

Despite a certain autonomy from the masses, Saor Eire was not, it was ex-
plained, a foquista group: “We don’t believe that the foco itself can become the
party or has any monopoly on the revolution. But small guerrilla groupings, to a
certain extent independent of the working class, can help to raise the level of the
working class and so help to create the party.” (Emphasis in original.)

In fact, Saor Eire was a very special kind of guerrilla group, one sympathetic to
the Fourth International and especially to the International’s support for “armed
struggle,” an Irish facsimile of the Argentine Ejercito Revolucionario del Pueblol
An exemplification of the correctness of the line of the Ninth World Cong-
ress. ...

“As regards the Fourth International: we recognise the revolutionary role it has
played since its inception; how it came to the aid of the Algerian revolution with
arms and weapons while other so-called revolutionary organisations failed to ful-
fill their duty. We also admire how they came to the aid of the Cuban and Viet-
namese revolutions and defended them against imperialism, in America and
throughout the world. We are particularly sympathetic to the political assistance
it is giving the Irish struggle at the moment. While the Stalinists have consistently
dilly-dallied and vacillated on the question of Ireland and on the role of armed
struggle in Ireland, the Fourth International is probably the only organization
which has consistently given it support. A lot of our members have been, at some
time or other, members of Trotskyist groupings.”®

1 .

The Trotskyist Martyrs; or the International “Secret Army”

When Peter Graham, an active member of IMG and Saor Eire, was mur-
dered by a rival IRA group strong statements advocating violence were made
by IMG activists. Concerning this Foley wrote:

But it is not necessary to wait for the truth about Comrade Graham’s death to
draw some conclusions about the way the IMG and its European cothinkers re-
sponded to this tragic incident.

“After recalling Peter Graham’s life as a revolutionist, Comrade Tariq Ali
issued a warning: ‘At present we do not know what criminal brute shot Peter
Graham to death; but we will find out; and when we do we have ways of dealing
with this type of individual.’

“An investigation is now in progress, but as Saor Eire declared (cf. Rouge, no.
126), any investigation must be directed at the offices of the Special Branch (poli-
tical police) in Dublin.” {Rouge, November 6, 1971.)

Comrade Ali’s solemn warning could not fail to make the headlines. This was
particularly true since the Dublin papers were giving sensational coverage to the
Graham killing, treating it as a mysterious gang war among the republican and
far-left fringe.

Comrade Ali’s threats were made even more newsworthy by an article in the
independent left-liberal news weekly This Week by Sean Boyne.

“The Dublin Trotskyist leader Peter Graham (26) may have been murdered in
the middle of a gun-running operation. Informed sources in both Dublin and
London link him with a plan to smuggle guns through the 26 Counties for the IRA
war against British troops in the North.

“Graham would have been in a key position for any such operation. He was the
Irish representative of the Fourth International, an influential, pro-IRA Trotsky-
ist organisation with a world wide network of branches and previous gun-running
experience. He had very close contacts with Saor Eire almost since its inception.
He was reported to have had access to large sums of money and he was held in very
high esteem by important members of the Provisional IRA.

“There is no evidence that the Fourth International has been involved in gun-
running to Ireland. But through the organisation he would have been able to
make valuable contacts abroad. The Fourth International in recent years has
supplied arms for the rebellions in Cuba, Algeria and Hungry [sic], and is has now
decided on a policy of ‘maximum support’ for the IRA.

“But even if Graham had been running arms, and there is no conclusive proof
for this, who should want to kill him? His close associates in Dublin have ruled out
the possibility that he was sentenced to death as an informer by Saor Eire or any
Republican organization.

“ ‘Peter Graham was no informer and he was most security conscious,’ said
Tariq Ali, sentiments which were echoed by all who knew the dead man. The
Young Socialists have however recalled some allegations made some weeks ago by
Saor Eire that “murder squads” had been formed among right-wing gardai
[police] and Special Branch men. And a London-based friend of Graham’s has

mentioned the possibility of a move by British Intelligence to thwart a Trotskyist
intervention in the Northern Ireland situation.

“But there is also a theory that the shooting may have been ordered by some
rival bank-robbing group to Saor Eire which for some reason wanted to teach the
‘Trots’ a lesson. It may be significant that Saor Eire men have stated in recent
weeks that they were not responsible for every bank raid carried out in the 26
Counties.

“One thing is certain. Whoever was responsible for the murder is in a rather
delicate position. As one London Trotskyist said ominously: ‘There is an awful lot
of anger about the shooting of Peter Graham.’ ”

Boyne’s version of Comrade Ali’s remark was: “We have our own ways of deal-
ing vdth such people.”

There is unfortunately no doubt that the IMG appreciated this kind of pub-
licity, with all its exciting suggestions that the Fourth International was engaged
in international gun-running and had its “own ways of dealing” with assassins.
Comrade Ali in fact protested because Intercontinental Press did not reprint this
flattering article in full.

In fact, one organ of a section supporting the lEC Majority Tendency seemed
really to strain itself to present the situation of the Irish Trotskyists in the most
heroic light.

“In difficult conditions after the cowardly assassination of Peter Graham and
the mysterious death in January 1972 of Mairin Keegan, another leader of the
RMG, our comrades of the Irish section are assuming an enormous task. They
have to offer real support to the two branches of the republican movement (the
Official and Provisional IRA), to develop Marxist analyses of the Irish question,
and above all to coordinate the struggles in the North as well as the South because
they alone of all the revolutionary organizations have a base both in Ulster and the
Republic.” (Rouge, June 3, 1972.)

Tragic as Comrade Keegan’s death was, it was not unexplainable. She died of
a long illness. She was, however, a member of Saor Eire, as a member of the RMG
pointed out at a memorial meeting held for her in London.

“She was not simply an armchair Marxist; she allied theory to action. In
May 1968 in Paris she took part in the struggle of the workers and students which
has opened the new era of working class revolution. And in 1969, back in Ireland,
as a member of the Dublin Citizens Committee and more importantly Saor Eire,
she gave aid to the national revolution that has been developing in Northern
Ireland. . . .

“I might conclude by wishing a long life to the FI (Fourth International) but
this would be contrary to that body’s aims. It wants world revolution and the
world includes Ireland as soon as possible. So I prophesy a short and successful
life to the FI and to Saor Eire. Let our enemies which are those of the working
class beware. We are only beginning.” {The Red Mole, January 24, 1972.)

The dangers that this kind of romantic rodomontade by the supporters of the
lEC Majority Tendency represent for the entire International are only too ob-
vious. From the standpoint of revolutionary morality, moreover, it was extremely
dubious. It did not honor Graham’s sacrifice but exploited it, threatening to

build a farcical tissue of romantic pretensions around his death that could only
discredit the Irish Trotskyists.

At the same time, this type of boastfulness and lurid imagining had a powerful
momentum. For many months after the death of Comrade Graham, adventurist
fantasies tended to dominate the discussions in the RMG. This was particularly
noticeable in the conference of February 1972. The representative of the IMG,
Comrade Lawless, to his credit, stopped this trend at one point in the discussion
as it reached a dangerous point. (As for the representative of the International
leadership, he was apparently not disturbed by it and in fact was anxious to re-
assure me when I showed sigfns, no doubt, of getting rather agitated.) However,
it is clear from the line of The Red Mole and the IMG speaker at Comrade
Graham’s funeral that the British organization and the International leadership
encouraged precisely this sort of thing. It is fortunate that Comrade Lawless
decided to retreat from the logic of their adventurist line. One wonders what the
IMG would have done if this kind of talk had resulted in an actual adventure and
victimizations. Would they have sent a commando team to “avenge” the Irish
comrades? It is much more likely that a few more martyrs would have been ex-
ploited to add to the luster of the “revolutionary pole of attraction.”*®

Alan Harris also complained that the IMG was, “giving full support to a
small group that was expelled from the Republican movement, Saor Eire, an
anti-Leninist terrorist grouping based in the Irish Republic.”**

The British press, however, has accused Saor Eire of doing some of the
bombings in London and other English cities.

The SWP has given considerable publicity to a group in Ireland called the
Irish Republican Socialist Party. There is reason to believe that this group is
closely linked to Saor Eire. In an interview with an IRSP leader, Seamas
Costello, the SWP’s Gerry Foley asked about the warfare between his group
and the official IRA.

Q_. The “Officials” say that a shadowy military organization linked to the IRSP
has carried out attacks on their members. They draw two different conclusions
from this. Some say that you don’t control it. Others say that you are trying to use
it as your assassination squad without taking responsibility for what it does. What
is the relationship between the IRSP and the military groupings that have ex-
pressed support for it in the conflict with the “Officials”?

A. Well, the relationship with the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and the
other armed groups that have acted in this way is as follows; The PLA and other
groups that haven’t chosen to say publicly what their names are offered to assist
us in defending our members against the “Officials.” This followed the death of
one of our members in Belfast. The Belfast Regional Executive accepted that
offer. The basis of this acceptance was that as long as the “Officials” attacked
IRSP members, these groups would defend IRSP members against such actions
and retaliate for such actions.

It’s true to say that we don’t control the individual actions carried out in pursuit
of this policy, any more than the Army Council of the “Official” IRA controls the

individual actions of members of its organization. But we are quite satisfied that
as soon as agreement is reached between the IRSP and the “Official” IRA and as
soon as we have some concrete indication that the “Officials” are going to call off
its campaign, there will be no difficulty whatsoever about ensuring that there are
no attacks on members or supporters of the “Official” IRA.*^

IMG leader Tariq Ali has publicly supported terrorism and boasted that
if Gk)vernor Wallace had visited his university he would have killed him.**

The Trotskyite Communist Fourth International is actively supporting
terrorism and organizing proterrorist parties in other European countries.

Spain

There are two Fourth International sections in Spain. One, the Liga Com-
munista — Communist League — supports the Socialist Workers Party, U.S.A.
and its Leninist-Trotskyist faction. The other, Liga Communista Revolu-
cionaria — Euzkadi ta Azkatasuna (VI) (LCR-ETA (VI)) translated Revolu-
tionary Communist League — Land and Freedom VI— supports the “terror-
ism now” International Majority Tendency. The latter was formed by a
merger of the Trotskyite LCR with the Basque terrorist ETA (VI) early in
1974.*^

When a rival ETA faction, ETA (V), assassinated the Spanish Prime
Minister, Luis Carrero Blanco, in December 1973, LCR-ETA (VI) expressed
public support for the grotesque murder. The official newspaper of the
British Fourth International section. Red Weekly, headlined their Janu-
ary 11, 1974, issue “Spanish Trotskyists Give Total Support to Carrero
Blanco’s Assassination.”

Portugal

The official Fourth International section in Portugal is called the Liga
Comunista Internacionalista (LCI) (International Communist League).
Another group has recently surfaced called Partido Revolucionario dos Tra-
balhadores (Revolutionary Workers Party) which is mainly based among
militant high school students.** Attempts are being made to merge the two
groups.

On October 31, 1975, the Central Committee of the LCI complained to the
leadership of the Fourth International that the two representatives of the
United Secretariat operating in Portugal, Comrades Aubin and Duret, had
been organizing a faction within LCI.*® “Comrade Duret” has been identified
as A. Udry, a member of the Fourth International Executive Committee from
Switzerland. “Aubin” is Charles Michaloux, one of the most active propo-

nents of international terrorism now in the French Fourth International
section.

Greece

The International Communist Party is the Greek section of the Fourth
International. One of its active members, Theologos Psaradelles, was prose-
cuted for breaking into a military depot and stealing explosives. He was
arrested in 1969, tried in 1970 and sentenced to a 12 -year term.

He told the court:

I am a worker and a member of the Fourth International. This precise class and
political position has led me onto the road of struggle against oppression and
into attempting to give a correct orientation to the Greek and world workers.

*****

I am accused of attempting to overthrow the state by force and violence. I do not
deny it. * * *

*****

These are my aims and -they are the aims of the Fourth Communist Inter-
national to which I belong.

Psardelles concluded:

In the end, the working class and the oppressed masses will destroy the bar-
baric capitalistic system, which brings only misfortunes, hunger, and wars. On
the ruins of capitalism they will build the United Socialist Republics of the World.

Try us, but wait. A fire is consuming everything. It is burning under your feet,
above you, around you. You and your masters will not escape it.

Long live the world working class!

Long live the Fourth International!

Long live the World Socialist Revolution!^’

Chapter 7

Terrorist Activities in
the Middle East

The Fourth International supports terrorism in the Middle East as a
weapon for the eventual creation of an Arab Communist state stretching
from North Africa to Pakistan. As an initial step toward that goal, the Fourth
International supports Palestinian terrorists and the destruction of the State
of Israel.

This policy was described in an article signed by “Jaber,” a member of the
International Executive Committee from Lebanon; “Sami,” of Iraq; and
Gerard Vergeat, an alternate member of the lEC who is assigned to work for
the Fourth International Bureau, the apparatus for day-to-day operations. *
The article revealed the Fourth International position in support of the
“complete and unconditional right of the Palestinian Arab people to self-
determination; that is, their right to reclaim all the territory from which they
have been expelled.”

The article states:

The exercise of this right presupposes the destruction of the Zionist state * * * .

* * * this solution cannot be envisaged outside the context of a revolutionary over-
turn in the entire Near East, which alone can provide the forces necessary to liberate
Palestine from the Zionist and imperialist grip. That is, the destruction of the
Israeli state goes hand in hand with the abolition of the other Arab states, on the
road to creating a united Arab state. ^

The Israeli section of the Fourth International is called the Revolutionary
Communist League, also known as Matzpen-Marxist. Its leader is Michel
Warshawsky who serves on the International Executive Committee of the
Fourth International under the alias “Mikado.

In an article in the official Fourth International magazine, Inprecor, War-
shawsky boasted of the role of his organization during recent rioting by Arab
students in the Israeli-occupied West Bank area. He wrote:

The response to the RCL’s activity, amplified by a press campaign after the
arrest of some of its militants, has strongly increased the esteem for and audience

of the revolutionary Marxists among the Palestinian population. For the first
time, the RCL appeared not as an organization of anti-Zionist Jews in solidarity
with the struggle of the Palestinians, but as an organization that is an integral part
of the struggle of this Palestinian population and is implanted among it.^

The Revolutionary Communist Group, led by S. Jaber, operates as the
Lebanese section of the Fourth International. They actively participated in
the 1975-1976 civil war in support of the Palestinian- Lebanese Left coalition.
Jaber wrote in “Inprecor”: “Militarily, the RCG participated in the fighting
in the anti-reactionary camp.” He went on to say “the RCG chose to partici-
pate essentially in the task of defending the popular neighborhoods. It took
charge of some of the advanced defense posts.

Both the Israeli and Lebanese sections of the Fourth International pretend
that they are only sympathizers, rather than members of the Fourth Inter-
national. In a letter signed “Mikado” and “Jaber” addressed to the 10th
World Congress of the Fourth International held in Sweden in February 1974,
they asked that their groups be recognized as sections of the International.
However, they asked that “for political as well as security problems, we are
asking to be identified only as symphasizing groups in the organs of sections
and groups of the International.”®

On August 3, 1975, the Cairo newspaper Al-Akhbar, reported that the
Egyptian Government had arrested several revolutionaries. The report stated:

The State Security Investigation Department has arrested members of a com-
munist organization which has links with communist organizations in Lebanon
and France. Some 20 members of the organization, including five women, have
been detained. The communist organization called itself the “International Com-
munist League,” whose objective is to overthrow the political economic systems
in the country and to impose the extremist communist “Trotskyite” system.

The security authorities have been following the organization’s activity since
August 1974 and its members were arrested last July. The communist organiza-
tion has links with the revolutionary communist amalgamation in Lebanon and
the Fourth International, which is an extremist communist group in France.

According to Intercontinental Press, a total of 20 Trotskyites had been
arrested on July 3, 1975. The Egyptian government had accused them of
connections with the Fourth International section in Lebanon from which
they had received funds and literature.’ Intercontinental Press reported on
July 19, 1976, that the remaining five Trotskyists had been released from
prison in Egypt.

The Socialist Workers Party, U.S.A. has been active in support of Middle
East terrorist movements. SWP National Committee member Tony Thomas
has explained the use of anti -Zionism as a cover for the Trotskyite desire to
overthrow all of the existing Middle East governments. He wrote:

It must be remembered the limitations of organizing rights in all of the Arab
countries. In fact until the early spring or late winter of this year Palestinians had
more organizing rights and less danger of total victimization than radicals in
Egypt or Syria. By centering on the demands against Israeli-occupation of Pales-
tine and against imperialist domination, revolutionists can make it more difficult
for repression to strike them, or when it strikes make it less advantageous for the
Arab capitalists and their imperialist backers.

This type of strategy, in summary, will make it more possible to add to the
already massive nationalist consciousness of the Palestinian and Arab peoples the
most important type of class consciousness — consciousness of the fact that the rul-
ing capitalists cannot grant the major demands they raise. This will be the basis of
a mass movement of the Arab revolution and a mass revolutionary party.®

The SWP even opposed American arms shipments to the Arab states,
claiming that such aid really benefits Israel. Thomas wrote:

As we know, a third corollary of the theory of permanent revolution is that
socialism cannot be completed in one country and that the dictatorship of the
proletariat cannot be assured of safety from imperialist intervention or bureau-
cratic degeneration, until revolutions are successful in the capitalist countries.
This is again another reason why the main axis of the Palestinian and Arab revo-
lutions must be centered on struggle against imperialism and Zionism. This is
why our central task must be mobilizing and educating the people of the U.S. and
other advanced capitalist countries to support the Arab revolution and to oppose
U.S. support to Israel, including in the form of aid to Arab states.®

The use of anti-Zionism as a cover for the real Trotskyite goal was also ex-
plained by Denis Hoppe of the East Lansing, Mich, local of the Young Social-
ist Alliance, the SWP youth group. Hoppe was describing relationships be-
tween YSA and the Organization of Arab Students. Some of the Arab stu-
dents were Stalinist-oriented— that is, pro-Russian or pro-Red Chinese—
others supported their own governments. Hoppe wrote:

The YSA must be careful in dealing with these organizations to make it clear
that we do not want them to be restrictive. They are most effective and active
when they do not limit political discussion to only one point of view. That is why
we must reserve our specific revolutionary analysis of the Middle East to our inter-
nal relations with OAS. At public forums with OAS, we should limit our com-
ments to the defense of the Arab revolution against Zionism and imperialism.
The OAS is critical of the YSA for speaking about the evils of Stalinism at public
forums on the Middle East. Furthermore, since many members of the OAS are
outright supporters of the countries and regimes who sent them to this country on
scholarship (Iraq, Libya, etc.) we must be careful to avoid alienating them by
excessive criticism of the Arab regimes at events co-sponsored with OAS. As I
mentioned earlier, the OAS’s effectiveness is largely due to the fact that large
numbers of Arabs of differing political views can unite around the task to be done

in the U.S. ; defense of the Palestinian and Arab revolution. Since the YSA agrees
with this, we unite with them on that issue. The specific expression of Trotskyist
ideas must be reserved to informal discussions. Actually, since the Arab students
have seen that the YSA and SWP are the best defenders of the fight against Israel
in the U.S., it is they who will come and ask us about our politics to find how we
reached our position on the Middle East.^°

Africa

The Fourth International has little real influence in Africa, although they
do support Marxist- Leninist terrorist groups trained and armed by the Soviet-
bloc operating in Rhodesia, South Africa, and Southivest Africa, The British
section of the Fourth International, the International Marxist Group, pub-
lishes a magazine called Africa in Struggle to express this support.

I. B. Tabata serves as a “consultant” member of the International Execu-
tive Committee using the alias “Tom.” Tabata, born in South Africa and long
resident in Europe, is the only African member of the IEC.“

Chapter 8

Terrorist Activities
in North America

There are two Trotskyite organizations in Canada. One of these, the
League for Socialist Action/ Ligue Socialiste Ouvriere LSA/LSO, supports
the minority Leninist-Trotskyist Faction which believes terrorism may be a
useful tactic in the future. The other, the Revolutionary Marxist Group,
RMG, which has its principal base among French-speaking Canadians in
Quebec, is a staunch supporter of the “terrorism now” International Majority
Tendency.

During the 1970 wave of terrorism by the Front de Liberation du Quebec,
FLQ, Canadian Trotskyites tried to maintain a low profile. They were em-
barrassed by the open support of terrorism in Canada by their British com-
rades in the International Marxist Group, IMG, and its publication, at that
time called the Red Mole.

Joseph Hansen of the Socialist Workers Party described the problem of his
Canadian comrades;

While the Canadian Trotskyists were trying to differentiate their own position
from the ultraleft one taken by The Red Mole, they were confronted by an even
worse problem— what to do about the remarks made by Comrade Tariq Ah on a
television panel filmed at Oxford by CTV , the national Canadian television net-
work. This program was shown throughout Canada, while our comrades, like the
rest of the left, were doing their best to mobilize a massive defense against the
repression.

Some very provocative questions were directed at Comrade Ali. In answering,
he did not appear to keep well in mind the situation in Canada and the need to
help to the best of his ability in mobilizing a broad defense against the repression.

For instance, he was asked: “Do you believe, sir, that society today has reached
the point where you see you have to use violence to achieve your ends?”

Comrade Ali replied: “I would say that this is largely a tactical question, de-
pending precisely on the degree of opposition which we encounter in our struggle
for socialism. But briefly, the answer is yes. I think that to achieve the ends we
believe in to the establishment of a socialist republic, I believe that a certain
element of violence is absolutely necessary.”

Another provocative question was: “When you were president of the Oxford

Debating Union did you not invite CJovernor Wallace of Alabama to speak at the
Oxford Union?”

Comrade Ali answered: “Yes. Do you know why? Because we would have killed
him.”

That did not come off so well, and Comrade Ali was soon explaining; “Of
course, when I say, ‘Kill him,’ I don’t mean it necessarily literally. It’s a tactical
question. If I believed we could get away with killing him we would. It is a ques-
tion of if you are organized to do so. I don’t think we are. I meant kill him
politically. That is what we wanted to do, but that wouldn’t have taken place
because Wallace wouldn’t have got further past Oxford Station.”

The setting for broadcasting this TV program, it should be underlined, was
Canada in the midst of a great police hunt for urban guerrillas charged with kid-
napping and murder. It was shown on the television screens during a repression
in which our own headquarters and the homes of many comrades were raided,
and two of our leaders were thrown into prison.

Comrade Ali did what he could to turn the provocative questions into a high-
level dialogue on the difference between “individual terror” with mass support
and “individual terror” without mass support — a distinction a bit too fine, one
must suppose, for the Canadian audience to appreciate at the moment. “At
times,” he said, “I think that individual terror becomes necessary. I don’t believe
in individual terror as a principle; I am completely opposed to it. I’ll give you a
concrete instance. I don’t believe in solving this particular argument by shooting
off a few people, who are making rude noises. Nor do I think individual terror can
in itself bring you any nearer to what we believe in. Of course not. I believe that
individual terror is justified when you have a mass movement, when you have
mass support inside a particular society, then it is justified.”^

Tariq Ali serves on the Fourth International Executive Committee under
the alias “Ghulam.”^ He receives his salary from a U.S. tax-exempt organiza-
tion, the Transnational Institute, TNI, of the Institute for Policy Studies,
IPS, located in Washington, D.C. Ali, a Pakistani, is reportedly “working on
a series of essays on Indian national^ and communism” for the Trans-
national Institute.^ \ I

The Institute for Policy Studies is a leftist think-tank which usually takes a
pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban stance; and whose staff has included a variety of
terrorist supporters and members of terrorist organizations. The Transna-
tional Institute has offices both in Washington, D.C. and in Amsterdam,
Holland. The TNI is headed by Eqbal Ahmad and a leading Castroite
propagandist, Saul Landau.

On September 9, 1976, Basker Vashee represented the Transnational
Institute of IPS at a congressional conference on southern Africa sponsored by
the Fund for New Priorities in America. The conference was held in the
Russell Senate Office Building. Vashee was identified to the audience by the
conference moderator as “a member of the national executive of ZAPU.”
ZAPU is the Zimbabwe African People’s Union, a Soviet-supported terrorist
group in Rhodesia headed by Joshua Nkomo.

Chapter 9

Trotskyite Splits
and Splinter Groups

The history of the Trotskyite movement since 1929 has been one of exten-
sive faction fights and splits. To recount all of them would require a large
book. It is useful, however, to analyze the post World War II splits which
have significance in the study of international terrorism.

The Fourth International was decimated during World War II. A substan-
tial portion of its European cadres died at the hands of both the Nazis and the
Communists. Only the Socialist Workers Party in the United States had a
viable organization functioning. As a result the SWP took the responsibility of
rebuilding the International. The SWP leadership appointed Ernest Mandel
(Germain) and Michel Raptis (Pablo) as the International leaders.*

The Pablo- Germain leadership developed a concept that since world con-
quest by the Soviet Union was inevitable, it was the job of Trotskyites to aid
the Soviet drive. As they phrased it— mankind must be prepared to live under
a form of “degenerated workers’ states” for centuries. This is the Trotskyite
designation for Soviet style communism, gram of entryism which meant that
Trotskyites should work within the existing Stalinist Communist Parties and
aid them in taking power.

In 1953 a strong group within the Socialist Workers Party— SWP— led by
Bert Cochran, with the support of the international leadership, advanced a
pro-Stalinist position. The logic of their argument would have resulted in dis-
solving the SWP and entering the Communist Party apparatus and its per-
iphery. Cochran and his supporters were expelled from the SWP and the
Fourth International — FI— was split.

The SWP, a group in England led by Gerry Healy and a group in France
led by Pierre Lambert formed the International Committee of the Fourth
International. The Pablo-Mandel leadership called themselves the Inter-
national Secretariat of the Fourth International. This split continued until
1963.

During the 10 years of the split the International Secretariat provided full
support for the world Communist movement; this included sending Viet-

namese Trotskyites to fight in Ho Chi Minh’s army. They were arrested and
many were executed by the Viet Minh Communists.

Argentine Trotskyites were sent to Cuba for terrorist training in 1962.
Pablo was arrested in Europe while working with the Algerian Communists
in support of FLN terrorism.

In 1963 the SWP split with the International Committee and joined with
the International Secretariat to form the United Secretariat. A small Latin
American group led by Posadas left the International Secretariat at this point
and has been collaborating with Castroite groups in terrorist activities in
various Latin American countries.

Early in 1964 two dissident factions were expelled by the SWP because they
had indicated continuing support for the International Committee. One
group led by James Robertson still exists under the name of the Spartacist
League -SL. 2 The other group originally called the American Committee for
the Fourth International has since changed its name to the Workers League
WL. This group now serves as the American section of the International
Committee of the Fourth International led by Gerry Healy of England. The
Spartacists have a close working relationship with the French Organisation
Communiste Internationaliste-OCI-led by Pierre Lambert which had also
split with the Healy group.^

Although the SWP was involved in collaboration with the Communist Party
U.S.A. — CPUSA — in a number of activities an even more pro-Stalinist fac-
tion emerged in 1959. This group was expelled from the SWP and became
the Workers World Party- WWP.^ A report prepared for the Cuban commu-
nists by Deirdre Griswold, a leader of the WWP, described the origins of the
organization. Griswold wrote:

Workers World was founded in 1959 by a small cadre of people who had existed
as a distinct political tendency within the Socialist Workers Party for ten years.
Differences with the SWP majority developed with the beginning of the Cold
War. From 1948, our cadre had serious differences with the positions and prac-
tice of the SWP on every question that had to do with the socialist countries and
the witch-hunt against the CPUSA within the United States.

The most important issues on which we differed were: (1) Tito’s break with
Stalin, which the SWP saw as a move to the left. We felt that objective condi-
tions in Europe at that time would impel Yugoslavia toward the orbit of imperial-
ism. (2) The Chinese Revolution, which we immediately evaluated as a socialist
revolution, despite the small working class in China. It took the SWP six years to
acknowledge the class character of the Revolution, and even then it was with no
enthusiasm. (3) The Korean War, which we saw as an expression of the global
class war between the class camp of the workers on the one hand and the camp of
world capitalism on the other. (4) The witch-hunt against the CPUSA, and espe-
cially the SWP’s attitude toward the execution of the Rosenbergs. The SWP only
gave a minimal paper defense to Communists under government attack, and re-
fused to mobilize support for the Rosenbergs - not even just m defense of their

democratic rights, let alone as class comrades in the struggle against imperialism.

We took initiative on our own to send a delegation to the protests organized on
behalf of the Rosenbergs. (5) The Hungarian counter-revolution. Despite all ob-
jective evidence, the SWP majority refused to see the real class forces in the re-
bellion, and hailed the so-called “freedom fighters” with revolutionary rhetoric.

We supported the intervention of Soviet troops as necessary to prevent counter-
revolution (as we did later in the Czechoslovak crisis), although our analysis of
how the counter-revolution was able to mobilize some mass support differed from
that of the CP’s.^

After leaving the SWP the Workers World group still considered them-
selves Trotskyist and applied for membership in the International Secretariat
of the Fourth International which at that time was still in conflict with the

SWP.^ .

The International Secretariat rejected the WWP application and alter a
short period of time Workers World abandoned even the vestiges of Trotsky-
ism. Griswold in her report to the Cubans said;

We do feel, however, that Trotsky made great contributions to the Russian
Revolution, both as a leading member of the Bolshevik Party, and organizer of
the Red Army, and in his theoretical contributions on the problems of socialist
revolution in backward countries, and on the contradictory character of the social
grouping that rose to power in the Soviet Union after Lenin’s death. Because
there is great confusion on these questions in the world Marxist movement, how-
ever, and because most radicals associate Trotskyism with the degenerated parties
of the Fourth International, a position on Trotsky is not a requirement of mem-
bership in our party.’

As a result of the terrorist orientation of the majority of the United Secre-
tariat of the Fourth International, a faction fight developed in the SWP. A
minority group called the Proletarian Orientation Tendency- POT --
supported the international leadership and its “terrorism now” tactic. This
group was defeated at the 1971 SWP convention. Many of its members led by
Barbara Gregorich and Phil Passen left to set up their own organization
which has not affiliated with any international movement.

Those members of POT that remained in the SWP joined other dissident
factions to form the Internationalist Tendency in 1973.8 This group argued
in support of terrorism as outlined by the International Majority Tendency of
the Fourth International led by Ernest Mandel. In July 1974 most of the
members of the IT were expelled from the SWP for violating party discip-
line. None were expelled for their advocacy of terrorism.® Some members of
the proterrorist faction remained in the SWP.

The International Executive Committee of the Fourth International meet-
ing, January 27-30, 1975. ordered the SWP to take back the expelled IT
members. A resolution was passed which said in part:

The International Executive Committee of the Fourth International accepts the
following proposals commonly agreed upon by the International Control Com-
mission in its investigation:

1. To make the recommendation that the SWP act in good faith and consider
without delay the collective application of the IT for reintegration in the SWP.

2. We note that the IT states it wants to participate in public activities sup-
ported by the SWP. We note that the SWP does not object to this. Until the
situation is resolved, we recommend that when the IT and the SWP are involved
in the same activities they seek to maintain a cooperative attitude avoiding public
attack on one another.*®

The SWP agreed to abide by the order. According to the official minutes:

Two members of the Political Committee of the Socialist Workers Party, Jack
Barnes and Joseph Hansen, have pledged that they will urge the National Com-
mittee at its coming plenum to weigh favorable implementation of the proposals
commonly agreed on by the International Control Commission in its investiga-
tion.**

At this time about two dozen IT members have been readmitted to the
SWP. The IT itself has split into a number of small warring factions. Two
members of the IT serve on the International Executive Committee of the
Fourth International; Jon Barzman is a full member under the name “Hovis”
and William Massey is alternate member under the name “Moss.”*^

Some members of the IT have joined a group called the Revolutionary
Marxist Organizing Committee headed by Milton Zaslow. Under the name
Mike Bartell, Zaslow was the New York City organizer of the SWP until he
left with the pro-Stalinist faction in 1953.*^ The RMOC is sympathetic to the
International Majority Tendency of the Fourth International including its
support for the terrorist orientation. The IMT has urged the SWP to work
closely with this group. *^

Conclusions

First. The Socialist Workers Party is the American section of the Fourth
International.

Second. The Fourth International advocates and engages in terrorism in
various parts of the world.

Third. A considerable amount of information concerning international
terrorism contained in this report was obtained from confidential internal
publications made available only to members of the Socialist Workers Party.

Fourth. The Socialist Workers Party which was on the Attorney General’s
subversive list for many years should remain the subject of a continuous inves-
tigation by our law enforcement agencies.

Chapter 10

The Socialist Workers
Party — An Update

During the last session, I inserted into the Congressional Record a series of
reports on Trotskyism and terrorism. These reports, taken primarily from the
internal documents of the Socialist Workers Party and the Fourth International,
showed that the majority of the Fourth International supported and carried out
a strategy of armed struggle and terrorism. The Socialist Workers Party, as part
of the minority of the Fourth International, opposed this strategy at this time,
but supported terrorism as a possible tactic at a more opportune moment in his-
tory.

The Socialist Workers Party has been engaged in a lawsuit against the U.S.
Government claiming an infringement of its rights because of Government sur-
veillance of its activities. As a result of this suit, extensive FBI files have been
available to the SWP. Last year then Attorney General Levi ordered the FBI
to terminate its surveillance of the SWP and remove its informants. As a result,
the Government no longer has available the internal documents of the SWP
showing continued affiliation with the Fourth International which continues to
support terrorism as a tactic to be used now.

The SWP has now demanded production of Central Intelligence Agency files.
As Socialist Workers Party member Syd Stapleton said in answer to The Mili-
tant’s question, “What kind of information do you hope to get from CIA?” —
“We know that the CIA collects information about the SWP and Fourth Inter-
national — the SWP’s revolutionary socialist cothinkers in other countries.”
(The Militant, March 25, 1977.)

The SWP demand for documents was resisted by the CIA. A Government
brief citing the reasons to the court said:

“A close analysis of various documents produced by plaintiffs in this action in-
dicates that (a) the Fourth International and its constituent sections comprise
a worldwide network which supports revolutionary violence and political terror-
ism; (b) sections of the Fourth International have been responsible for notor-
ious acts of terrorism with the approval, if not the actual connivance of the
Fourth International’s leadership; (c) the Fourth International takes credit
for an important role in at least one major instance of revolutionary violence

I 73

against an important ally of the United States!’ (The Militant, April 1 , 1977).

Jack Barnes, National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party, in an answer-
ing deposition, claimed that the Fourth International never advocated terrorism.
He said that the International majority had mistakenly supported the activities
of the ERP, a terrorist group in Argentina. According to Barnes, they have now
repudiated that support. Referring to a resolution of the Ninth World Congress
of the Fourth International which took place in 1969, Barnes stated:

“All tendencies in the Fourth International now recognize that the Ninth
World Congress document was in error. (See Self-Criticism on Latin America,
by the Steering Committee of the International Majority Tendency, attached as
Exhibit 1.) All tendencies agree that the position adopted at the Ninth World
Congress did not politically arm the Fourth International to resist the evolution
of the Revolutionary Worker Party (PRT) in Argentina. The PRT had al-
ways held positions differing from those of the Fourth International. These dif-
ferences deepened after the Ninth World Congress. Many PRT activists took
part in the broader ERP (Revolutionary Army of the People) formed in 1970,
and carried out adventurous and even terrorist acts. This evolution of the PRT
away from Trotskyism resulted in its breaking with and denouncing the Fourth
International in 1973.” (ibid)

Barnes failed to note that the Socialist Workers Party leadership has accused
the Fourth International leadership of supporting terrorism, not only in Argen-
tina, but in Spain, France, and Ireland. He further neglected to state that the
Tenth World Congress of the Fourth International, held in 1974, had reiterated
its support for armed struggle and terrorism, but had criticized the idea that
armed struggle should stand alone not linked with political organization. The
resolution on armed struggle adopted by the majority of the Fourth Interna-
tional in 1974 read in part:

“The strategy of armed struggle is part of the central effort of the Fourth In-
ternational to resolve the crisis of revolutionary leadership through building
new mass revolutionary parties. Unless it provides a concrete answer to the prob-
lems posed by the rise of revolutionary struggles, such a party cannot be built.
One of the most burning questions raised in the very course of the class struggle
in Latin America is what to do, given the succession of military coups, and the
repeated crushing of the most promising mass movements in one country after
another, what to do given the total failure of ‘foquismo.’

“When they possess the minimum forces necessary to do so, the revolu-
tionary Marxist organizations must consider the creation of armed detach-
ments of the party — in the conditions elaborated above — as a special task within
the framework of their overall orientation. In any case the experience of the Ar-
gentine PRT IPartido Revolucionario de los Trabaj adores — Revolutionary
Workers Party 1 has demonstrated that whatever political and organizational
errors were committed, the revolutionaries who had been satisfied with literary

and academic proclamations in this regard when they were in the Moreno orga-
nization were able to take a necessary turn toward the creation of armed detach-
ments of the party, and were able to influence the course of political events in
their country.” ^

Jack Barnes conveniently forgot that he, himself, had accused the leader of the
Fourth International, Ernest Mandel, of “attempts to smuggle terrorism under
the name ‘urban guerrilla war,’ into the traditions of Leninism. . .” ^

The self-criticism on Latin America by the International Majority Tendency,
referred to by Barnes in his deposition, means the exact opposite of what he
claims.

The FBI no longer has informants in the SWP. It cannot obtain the secret in-
ternal documents of the SWP and the Fourth International needed to refute the
claims made by Barnes.

A careful reading of the “self-criticism” shows that the International Majority
Tendency continues to support the strategy of armed struggle. It says in part:

“But apart from the fact the formula ‘strategy of armed struggle’ obviously
does not provide the necessary instruments fdr precise elaboration by a section in
Latin America, it falsely identifies what must be an element of revolutionary
strategy with the whole of this strategy, which could be interpreted — and was —
as reducing revolutionary strategy to ‘armed struggle’ alone.” ^

The criticism has the IMT asserting that armed violence must be only one
element of the revolutionary struggle. Even this minor concession was opposed
by Livio Maitan, one of the key leaders of the International Majority Tendency.
Maitan stated:

“I vote against the document on Latin America: (a) because I consider that the
necessary self-criticism was made in the documents of the Tenth World Con-
gress and that the additional elements of self-criticism must be based on an over-
all political analysis of the whole period.”

Maitan has been in close contact with Trotskyite terrorist groups in Latin
America. When the ERP left the Fourth International, a group called the Red
Faction remained in. This group continued to commit terrorist acts in Argen-
tina. In May 1973, they kidnapped an Argentinian business executive, Aaron
Beilinson. The next month, he was released upon payment of a $1 million ran-
som. One hundred thousand dollars of this ransom was turned over to Livio
Maitan to support Trotskyite and other terrorist operations throughout the
world. Shortly after receiving the money, Maitan attended the 1973 convention
of the Socialist Workers Party where he spoke in support of terrorism.

Leaders of the Socialist Workers Party have expressed the position, in their
secret internal bulletins, that while they oppose terrorism as a tactic now, they
support it as a possible future tactic. SWP national committee member, Peter
Camejo, in an answer to Ernest Mandel — Germain — stated:

“Comrade Germain leaves the impression that Lenin opposed terrorism but

supported guerrilla warfare. Lenin’s approach was not that simple.

“Guerrilla warfare is only one form of the utilization of arms. It cannot be cor-
rectly counter posed to terrorism.

“The word ‘terrorism’ is commonly used to mean the politics of those who be-
lieve that violent actions against individual bourgeois figures can bring about so-
cial change, precipitate a revolutionary situation, or electrify or help mobilize
the masses even if undertaken by isolated individuals or groups. Terrorism in
that sense is rejected by the Marxist movement. But under the conditions of civil
war, terrorist acts can have a totally different political import. Their isolated
nature fades. In the process of an insurrection, terrorist acts may be advan-
tageous to the workers movement. They may also be damaging. But terrorist
acts that are not part of a generalized mass armed struggle remain isolated and
are detrimental to the workers movement.” ^

Mary-Alice Waters, another SWP National Committee member, made the
following statement;

“The majority held that they too were for building parties but that revolu-
tionary parties could only be constructed today in Latin America if the Trotsky-
ists proved themselves the best guerrilla fighters, arms in hand. Such was the
only path to either the vanguard or the masses.

“The minority felt that such a strategy could only lead to the political misedu-
cation of the entire world movement and the decimation of the small Trotskyist
parties and cadres in Latin America. Logically it would have to be extended be-
yond Latin America to other parts of the world.

* * * *

“Other supporters of the Latin American majority document have tried to shift
the discussion onto the axis of ‘for or against armed struggle.’ We reject any
implication that that is what the discussion is really about. If supporters of the
minority view were against armed struggle, they would be Social Democrats
or Stalinists, not Trotskyists. What we reject is the strategy of ‘pick up the gun’
as the road to power. As a strategy it stands in the way of the construction of
mass revolutionary parties throughout Latin America, and that is what the
debate is about.” ^

As a result of the faction fight within the Fourth International concerning
terrorism and other related matters, a faction developed within the Socialist
Workers Party supporting the International Majority Tendency against the
leadership of the SWP. Most of the members of this group were expelled from
the SWP in 1974, not because of their support of terrorism, but because of viola-
tions of SWP bureaucratic rules. Some members of this faction called the Inter-
nationalist Tendency were not expelled as they had not broken any rules. They
continue to support the pro-terrorism now line of the Fourth International.
These include Robert Langston, Berta Langston, Peter Graumann, Gerard
Guibet, Jim Moran, Celia Stodola, and Alan Wald.^

As a result of pressure from the Fourth International some members of the In-
ternationalist Tendency were readmitted to the SWP. These united with those
who had been left behind and together total about 25 members.® One of them,
John Barzman, serves on the International Executive Committee and the United
Secretariat of the Fourth International under the name of “Hovis.” The 1976
Socialist Workers Party convention elected Barzman as a member of the Na-
tional Committee of the SWP.’ Prior to the convention Barzman set forth as the
position of his faction in the Socialist Workers Party a collection of resolutions
supported by the International Majority Tendency and passed at the Tenth
World Congress, including the pro-terrorist “Resolution on Armed Struggle in
Latin America.”

On June 24, 1975, Barzman wrote a letter to the United Secretariat of the
Fourth International in Brussels recommending that they accept the resigna-
tion of William Massey as an alternate member of the International Executive
Committee. According to Barzman:

“This letter is to report some information which may be of use in making a
swift disposition with regard to Cde. Massey’s letter of resignation. Recently,
he has become inactive and dropped out of the IT new faction. Further, at a rally
in defense of Joanne Little, held Saturday, June 21, 1975, I saw him carrying a
bundle of the newspaper ‘Workers World’, the organ of the Workers World
Party and Youth Against War and Fascism. Other indications from our former
comrades Don Smith and Ed Hoffman seem to indicate that this is part of a gen-
eral political retreat toward this pro-Stalinist sect. I would recommend an imme-
diate break-off of all party relations with him and the acceptation of his resigna-
tion.”

According to SWP Organizational Secretary, Barry Sheppard, Massey had
joined the Workers World Party.

Why Barzman should be surprised at Massey’s relationship with the Workers
World Party is an interesting question, since both Massey and Barzman had
had close contacts with it in 1974 in Chicago. The reference to the Workers
World Party as a “pro-Stalinist sect” refers to Trotskyite terminology for a
group which follows or works closely with the Soviet Union, Red China, or any
of the current Communist countries.

Another group that the Trotskyites could properly term as a pro-Stalinist
sect is the Revolutionary Marxist Organizing Committee. It is led by Milton
Zaslow — aka Mike Bartell. Zaslow, the former New York City organizer of the
Socialist Workers Party, was expelled in 1953 during a faction fight in which he
and others advocated a closer relationship with the Communist Parties around
the world. According to John Barzman:

“RMOC is an organization founded last November by the L.A. Socialist
Union, the Baltimore Marxist Group, a number of former IT comrades who
refused to abide by the lEC recommendations to collaborate with the SWP, and

a few other elements. RMOC claims to support the F.I. and has submitted a
proposal that it be collectively admitted into the SWP. The proposal consisted in
a letter of a few lines.”

Zaslow led the Los Angeles group. The Baltimore group consists mainly of
Rick Ehrmann, John Sinnigen, Lisa Sinnigen, and Star Bowie. The latter had
been expelled from the SWP in 1974 while the others had left earlier.'^

It is interesting to note that Livio Maitan, the most vociferous supporter of
terrorism in the Fourth International, attended the founding conference of the
Revolutionary Marxist Organizing Committee in November 1975.’^

RMOC in Baltimore works closely with the Workers World Party.

The Socialist Workers Party is very proud of its ability to disrupt the Gov-
ernment’s antisubversive and antiterrorist apparatus. They see their lawsuit as
a major weapon against the United States. SWP National Committee member,
Larry Seigle, boasted at the August 1975 convention of the party;

“The government side on the case really does have a morale problem. It’s
a serious one for them. Our suit and the Justice Department criminal investiga-
tion our suit has triggered have done things to them that they can’t adjust to.
They can’t adjust to being defendants in their own courts. That don’t know how
to act, how to argue for their positions openly. It’s not one of the things they’re
trained to do, and historically they’ve never had to do it.

“You can see the demoralization on the faces of the government’s young at-
torneys every time there is a hearing before the judge. The lawyers for the gov-
ernment aren’t especially dedicated to the FBI and the CIA. They’re just serv-
ing time in the U.S. Attorney’s office before moving on to the world of corporate
law or tax law. And they don’t see this case as a promising steppingstone for
their careers. After one recent hearing, when our attorneys had presented argu-
ments on a procedural issue, the top government attorney told one of our law-
yers, ‘Look, you don’t have to worry about the procedural issues; we’re going
to lose this case on the merits.’

“I don’t think we have yet fully grasped the meaning and consequences of the
massive publicity about the party and this case. This is not just one big splash.
It’s constant repetition, week after week, sometimes day after day, in major
newspapers and on radio and television.

“Millions are learning the name of the Socialist Workers Party. And if they
don’t know antything else about us, they know that this is the party that is
standing toe to toe with the FBI. Slugging it out. Not giving an inch. And — to
the surprise of millions — we are landing some blows, some heavy blows, against
the FBI.”

The 1976 convention also heard a report by Judy White on the “Campaign
Against Repression in Argentina.” She said in part:

“The official repression, by the army, has cost the lives of at least 400 so-
called subversives. Among them are dedicated revolutionists like Mario Roberto

Santucho, leader of the People’s Revolutionary Army, the ERP, who was
gunned down in a raid on an apartment near Buenos Aires July 19.”

Santucho, the leader of the ERP, was thus eulogized by the SWP as a “dedi-
cated revolutionist.” This is at a time when the SWP was supposedly repudi-
ating the murders and kidnapings committed by the ERP terrorists.

The convention also sent the following greetings to Lureida Torres:

“To Lureida Torres: The 28th National Convention of the Socialist Workers
Party at Oberlin, Ohio, sends you its warmest greetings. We are sorry that you
could not attend the July 4 demonstration in Philadelphia for a bicentennial
with colonies. We know how much you desired to be there.

“The use of imprisonment to punish fighters for freedom is just one of the
weapons of Yankee imperialism. We know that you are aware of it and we salute
your courage and determination to fight for Puerto Rico’s independence. We
look forward to joining with you on the field of battle and we pledge our efforts
to obtain your earliest release.”

What the SWP characterized as fighting for freedom, was in this case Tor-
res’ refusal to testify before a grand jury about the activities of the Puerto Rican
terrorist group, FALN. Torres preferred to sit in jail for contempt rather than
reveal information about a group which has committed numerous bombings in-
cluding the one at the Fraunces Tavern in New York where 4 people were killed
and over 50 injured.

On October 16-17, 1976, the United Secretariat of the Fourth International
met in Brussels, Belgium. Among the leaders of the Socialist Workers Party
present at the meeting were Jack Barnes, Joseph Hansen, and Mary-Alice
Waters. After the meeting in Brussels the three met with the Political Commit-
tee of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Fourth Inter-
national, in London. According to a report given to the Political Committee of
the Socialist Workers Party on October 25, 1976;

“The IMG comrades are anxious to help ‘internationalize’ the SWP and
YSA’s suit against the American government.”’®

According to a report by Mary-Alice Waters on January 4, 1976, to the Na-
tional Committee of the Socialist Workers Party, the leaders of the two major
factions in the IMG are. Tendency A: Tariq Ali, Pat Jordan, and Robin Black-
burn; Tendency B: Alan Jones, Brian Grogan, and Bob Pennington.’’

Tariq Ali has been deeply involved in support operations for terrorism in a
number of areas including Ireland.

The Socialist Workers Party successes have been achieved by a combination of
their own aggressiveness and the Government’s lack of will to fight. The in-
ability of the executive branch of the U.S. Government to obtain the secret in-
ternal documents of the Fourth International and the Socialist Workers Party
has further hindered the Government defense. The demand by the SWP to see
classified CIA documents, some of which contain reports from foreign intelli-

gence services on international terrorism, must be resisted by our Government.

It is outrageous for American supporters of an international terrorist network to
demand that the Government tell them what information it has on their terror-
ist comrades. If this information is turned over to the SWP no foreign govern-
ment will ever cooperate with us in the fight against terrorism.

Seven members of the National Committee of the Socialist Workers Party
serve as “fraternal members” with full voting rights of the United Secretariat of
the Fourth International. The seven plus four more serve as members with full
voting rights of the International Executive Committee of the Fourth Interna-
tional. The seven with dual membership are (with their pseudonyms in paren-
theses): Edward Shaw (Atwood), Jack Barnes (Celso), Gus Horowitz (Galois),
John Barzman (Hovis), John Benson (Johnson)— while all the others are full
members of the National Committee of the SWP Benson is an alternate mem-
ber-Joseph Hansen (Pepe), and Mary-Alice Waters (Therese).^^ The other
four, who serve on the international executive committee, are Barry Sheppard
(Stateman), Carol Lund (Susan) and two who use the names Mitchell and

Bundy. 2’ . r u r n

The National Committee of the Socialist Workers Party consists of the tollow-

ing 35 regular members and 27 alternates:

Regular Members: Jack Barnes, John Barzman, Nelson Blackstock, George
Breitman, Joel Britton, Peter Camejo, Pearl Chertov, Clifton DeBerry, Maceo
Dixon, Catarino Garza, Fred Halstead, John Hawkins, Gus Horowitz, Doug
Jenness, Linda Jenness, Lew Jones, Frank Lovell, Caroline Lund, Wendy
Lyons, Malik Miah, Andrea Morrell, Derrick Morrison, Andrew Pulley, Harry
Ring Olga Rodriquez, Bev Scott, Larry Seigle, Ed Shaw, Barry Sheppard, Syd
Stapleton, Betsey Stone, Tony Thomas. Mary-Alice Waters, Nat Weinstein,
Tim Wohlforth.

Alternate Members22; Susan LaMont, John Benson, Judy White, Gerry
Foley Les Evans, Cindy Jaquith, Dick Roberts, Barbara Matson, Lynn Hen-
derson, Sam Manuel, Peter Seidman, Willie Mae Reid, Rich Finkel, Peggy
Brundy, Jeff Mackler, Baxter Smith, B. R. Washington, Dick McBride, Ken
Shilman, Ray Markey, Mac Warren, Pedro Vasquez, Pat Wright, Ed Heisler,
Omari Musa, James' Harris, Richie Ariza.

Among the members of the National Committee are John Barzman, repre-
senting the 25 supporters of the proterrorist International Majority Tendency,
and Tim Wohlforth, a recent convert from a rival Trotskyite group who has
agreed to participate in an SWP campaign against his former friends.

The Socialist Workers Party Control Commission consists of Kipp Dawson,
Wayne Glover, Helen Scheer, Larry Stewart.^'*

Footnotes

Chapter 1

The Socialist Workers Party and the Fourth International

1. “Statutes of the Fourth International,” adopted without change at the
Tenth World Congress, February 1974; Intercontinental Press, Vol. 12, No.
No. 46, December 23, 1974, pp. 1837-1840.

2. James P. Cannon, The History of American Trotskyism, Pioneer Pub-
lishers, New York.

3. Leon Trotsky, Dictatorship vs. Democracy, Workers (Communist) Party
of America, New York City, 1922, pp. 58-59.

4. James P. Cannon, The Workers and the Second World War, Pioneer
Publishers, New York, pp. 25, 26.

5. Tim Wohlforth, The Struggle for Marxism in the United States, Bulletin
Publications, New York, p. 54; Education for Socialists: Towards a History of
the Fourth International, Part 2, National Education Department of the Social-
ist Workers Party, 1976 reprint.

6. See International Information Bulletin, December, 1949, “On the Class
Nature of Yugoslavia,” by M. Pablo; International Information Bulletin,
January 1950, “The Yugoslav Question, The Question of the Soviet Buffer
Zone, and Their Implication for Marxist Theory”; SWP Internal Bulletin,
February 1950, “The Problem of Eastern Europe,” by Joseph Hansen.

The International Information Bulletin was published by the SWP from
the Internal Bulletin of the International Secretariat of the Fourth Interna-
tional. Pablo was the name used by Raptis; Germain was Mandel.

7. See International Socialist Review, New York (published by the SWP),
Fall, 1963; 4th International, Paris (published by the United Secretariat),
October-December, 1963.

8. 4th International, Paris, Summer 1960; Winter 1960-61 (published by
International Secretariat of the Fourth International).

9. Letter from SWP National Secretary Jack Barnes to Pierre Lambert of
the Central Committee of the Organisation Communiste Internationaliste
(OCI), the French section of the Organisation Communiste pour la Recon-
struction de la 4 Internationale, dated October 9, 1975, and circulated in a
memorandum by Mary-Alice Waters dated November 1, 1975.

10. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May, 1973, p. 5; SWP Dis-
cussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 51; (SWP) Internal Informa-
tion Bulletin, October, 1975, p. 10, No. 2 in 1975.

11. YSA Discussion Bulletin, February, 1967, pp. 6, 7, 12, 13.

12. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 5, April,

1974, pp. 13-14.

13. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June, 1975, “Report on
National Committee Perspectives and Election of Political Committee, by
Tack Barnes, pp. 48, 50.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 8 in 1974, August 1974, p. 37.

17. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 7 in 1973, December 1973,
pp. 8, 9.

18. Young Socialist Discussion Bulletin, December 1973.

19. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 6 in 1974, July 1974, p. 58.

20. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 6, October,

1975, (Documents and Correspondence Concerning the Organizing Commit-
tee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International and their Request for
Discussion With the United Secretariat); Mary- Alice Waters Memorandum
“To the Leninist-Trotskyist Faction Steering Committee,” November 1, 1975
(Two Letters from Pierre Lambert, and a reply from Jack Barnes); Internal
Information Bulletin, No. 9 in 1976, July 1976, (particularly Relations with
Trotskyist Organizations, or Groups Claiming to be Trotskyist, Which are
Outside of the Fourth International” Motions adopted by United Secretariat
meeting July .3-4, 1976; and “Translation of a letter from Michel Pablo to
Ernest Mandel, dated February 11, 1976”).

21. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 6, October
1975, p. 39.

Chapter 2

Socialist Workers Party Structure and Ideology

1. “Declaration of Principles and Constitution of the Socialist Workers
Party,” 1938, p. 9.

2. Ibid. , p. 19.

3. Ibid., p. 25.

4. Ibid., 2b.

5. “The Organization Principles Upon Which the Party Was Founded,”
The Struggle for a Proletarian Party, James P. Canrton, 1943, pp. 227-229.

6. /6^d.,p. 229.

7. / 62 d.. pp. 229-230.

8. “The Organizational Conclusions of the Present Discussion,” The
Struggle fora Proletarian Par^y, James P. Cannon, 1943, p. 232.

9. “Theses on the American Revolution,” James P. Cannon, 1946.

10. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 7 in 1974, August 1974, p. 15.

11. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 9.

12. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 2 in 1975, October 1975, p. 21.

13. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 6 in 1971, November 1971, p. 19.

14. Ibid., ^.20.

15. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 7 in 1971, November 1971,
pp. 7-8.

16. Idem.

Chapter 3

Socialist Workers Party Fronts

1. Internal Information Bulletin #4 in 1971, Oct. 1971 p. 15.

2. Ibid.

3. Internal Information Bulletin #6 in 1971, November 1971 p. 6.

4. Internal Information Bulletin #7 in 1971, November 1971 pp. 7-8.

5. YSA Internal Information Bulletin, “Documents on the Cases of Nancy
Adolfi and Ken Simpson” December 21, 1971 p. 8.

6. Socialist Workers Party Discussion Bulletin Vol. 33 #4 June 1975,
pp. 24, 25.

7. Young Socialist Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XVIII, #1, Nov. 1974 p. 5.

8. Ibid p. 7.

9. Ibid.

10. Militant, Sept. 24, 1976 p. 25.

11. Barry Sheppard report to SWP National Committee May 2, 1975,
SWP Discussion Bulletin Vol. 33, #4 June 1975 p. 20.

12. Report by SWP National Organization Secretary Barry Sheppard,
adopted by the National Committee plenum. May 2, 1975, SWP Discussion
Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 21.

13. Idem.

14. Idem.

15. International Information Bulletin, #7 in 1973, December 1973, p. 4.

16. Idem-, and Party Builder, SWP Organizational Discussion Bulletin,
Vol. VIII, No. 5, August 1974, p. 25.

17. House Committee on Internal Security Hearings, “National Peace
Action Coalition and People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice,” Part 4,
p. 3601.

18. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 2, in 1975, October 1975,
pp. 10 11; and SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 51.

19. Internal Information Bulletin, #7 in 1973, December 1973, p. 8.

20. /6^d. ,p. 5.

21. September 27, 1974, p. 8.

22. “The Nature of the Cuban Revolution,” Education for Socialists
Bulletin, April, 1968, SWP National Education Department.

23. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. Xll, #5, October
1975, p. 27.

24. S^artacwi, January-February, 1965, and November-December, 1965.

25. “Fair Play for Cuba Committee.” Hearings, Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee, Part 1, January 10, 1961, pp. 70-80.

26. New York Times, November 20, 1960; and “Fair Play for Cuba Com-
mittee,” Hearings. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Part 11, Testi-
mony of Richard Gibson, May 16, 1961, p. 180.

29. Internal Information Bulletin, #6 in 1974, July 1974, p. 22.

28. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. Xll, #5, October
1975, p. 19ff.

29. “Fair Play for Cuba Committee,” Hearings, Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee, Part 111, June 15, 1961, p. 250 ff.

30. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. Xll, #5, October
1975, p. 32.

31. Letter from Farrell Dobbs to Lee H. Oswald, Dobbs Exhibit No. 11,
Warren Commission Exhibits, Vol. XIX, p. 578.

32. Internal Information Bulletin, #10 in 1973, December 1973, p. 29.

33. Idem.

34. Statement of Aims, published in From Radical Left to Extreme Right,
Vol. 1, Campus Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml, 1970, pp. 201-202.

35. January 14, 1972, p. 12.

36. Young Socialist Organizer, March 13, 1972, p. 6.

37. Internal Information Bulletin, #6 in 1974, July 1974, p. 19; Interna-
tional Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. Xll, No. 2, January 1975, p. 272;
Internal Information Bulletin, #7 in 1974, August 1974, p. 13: SWP Discus-
sion Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 2, December 1973, p. 21; SWP Discussion
Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 14, June 1973, p. 8.

38. Newsday, September 17, 1966; Militant , ]\me 16, 1972, p. 9; Internal
Information Bulletin, #2 in 1975, October 1975, pp. 10-11; SWP Discussion
Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 51; SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 31,
No. 4, May 1973, p. 5.

39. Militant, March 23, 1973, p. 3; Militant , ]u\y 25 , 1969, p. 2.

40. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 7 in 1973, December 1973, p. 4.

41. Militant, April 5, 1974, p. 22; Militant, March 23, 1973, p. 3.

42. Militant, October 26, 1973, p. 15; Militant, March 14, 1969, p. 2.

43. Militant, September 28, 1973, p. 3; Militant, May 9, 1969, p. 6.

44. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 7 in 1973, December 1973, p. 4.

45. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 2 in 1975, October 1975, p. 4.

46. Militant, October 5, 1973, p. 5.

47. Militant, October 5, 1973, p. 5.

48. Militant, November 9, 1973, p. 19.

49. Militant, November 16, 1973, p. 14.

50. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 22.

51. Congressional Record, March 1, 1976, pp. H-1414-1418.

52. Congressional Record, May 27, 1976, pp. H-5038-5040.

53. Militant, March 21, 1969.

54. Internal Information Bulletin, #4 in 1975, December 1975, p. 15.

55. Internal Information Bulletin, #2 in 1975, October 1975, p. 4.

56. Internal Information Bulletin, #4 in 1975, December 1975, p. 14.

57. Idem.

58. Internal Information Bulletin, #3 in 1971, October 1971, pp. 7-8.

59. Internal Information Bulletin, #4 in 1975, December 1975, pp. 24-25.

60. Internal Information Bulletin, #3 in 1971, October 1971, p. 3.

61. Ibid., ^.5.

62. FBI Memorandum dated November 28, 1975, “U.S. Intelligence
Agencies and Activities: Domestic Intelligence Programs,” Part 3, Hearings,
House Select Committee on Intelligence (Pike Committee), p. 1145.

63. CAIFI Newsletter, Vol. II, No. 1, March 1976, p. 22.

64. Militant, September 20, 1974, p. 22.

65. “U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Activities: Domestic Intelligence Pro-
grams,” Part 3, Hearings, House Select Committee on Intelligence (Pike
Committee), pp. 1058-1059.

66. Internal Information Bulletin, #2 in 1975, October 1975, p. 4.

67. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 43.

68. Internal Information Bulletin, #6 in 1975, November 1971, p. 13.

69. “National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and Peoples Coalition for
Peace and Justice (PCPJ)”, Part 1, Hearings, House Committee on Internal
Security, p. 1739.

70. “National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and Peoples Coalition for
Peace and Justice (PCPJ)”, Part 4, Hearings, House Committee on Internal
Security, p. 3999.

71. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 2, January
1975, p. 58.

72. Internal Information Bulletin, #7 in 1973, December 1973, pp. 143,
146.

73. “National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and Peoples Coalition for
Peace and Justice (PCPJ)”, Part 2, p. 2293.

74. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 8, June 1971, pp. 12-13.

75. Ibid.,'p. 13.

76. Ibid., p. 39-40.

77. Internal Discussion Bulletin of the December 10th Faction of the
Workers League, December 10, 1974.

Chapter 4

The Fourth International Debate on Terrorism

1 . Letter from U.S. Department of State to Congressman Edward Koch dated

January 29, Congressional Record, March 1, 1976, p. H1417.

2. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume XI, No. 5, April

1974, p. 18. r ,7 u

3. Resolution on Latin America, Ninth World Congress of the Fourth

lrvte:rn 2 X\on 2 \ — Intercontinental Press, ]xi\y 14, 1969, p. 720-721.

4. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 8, June,

1973, p. 11. T n T 1

5. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 9, July,

1973, p. 11. . ^ ^

6. Internal Information Bulletin, January 1972, No. 1 m 1972, p. 4, 11.

7. Socialist Workers Party Discussion Bulletin, Volume 32, No. 1, Decem-
ber, 1973, p. 13.

8. Internal Information Bulletin, June 1972, No. 2 in 1973, p. 4, 5.

9. Ibid. p. 9.

Chapter 5

Latin American Terrorism

1. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume XI, No. 5, April,

1974, p. 18, “Letter to the World Congress from Luis” describing the early

history of Trotskyist “armed struggle” in Argentina and Peru.

2. Ibid., p. 16, “Letter to the World Congress from the Bolshevik- Leninist
of Vietnam.” The Fourth International (N.Y.), published by the SWP,
November-December , 1951 , reported the arrest of the leaders of the Vietnam
Trotskyites by the Viet Minh authorities. Despite this, they said, “In Vietnam
our reorganized forces will also attempt to work in the organizations influ-
enced by the Stalinists, naturally including its armed formations. They will
grant critical support to the Ho Chi-min regime in its struggle against
imperialism, while distinguishing themselves from it on the goal of this
struggle and the best means to lead it to victory.”

3. Ibid., p. 18.

4. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 5, April,
1973. Resolutions of the Fifth Congress of the P.R.T., p. 4-7.

5. Ibid., p. 20.

6. Intercontinental Press, September 11, 1972.

7. Trotskyite Terrorist International, hearing before the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Internal Security, July 24, 1975, p. 112-113.

8. Internal Information Bulletin, December, 1973, No. 7 for 1973, p. 3-5,
and Internal Information Bulletin, August, 1974, No. 7 for 1974, p. 3-4.

9. Trotskyite Terrorists International, op. cit., p. 112.

10. Ibid., p. 114.

11. Mary- Alice Waters, memo to the steering committee on the Leninist-
Trotskyist Faction, November 28, 1975.

12. World Outlook (Now Intercontinental Press), July 14, 1976.

13. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 24, Decem-
ber, 1973.

14. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 5, April,
1974, p. 3.

15. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 5, April,
1974, p. 16.

16. Letter from U.S. Department of State to Congressman Edward Koch
dated January 29, 1976, Congressional Record, March 1, 1976, p. H-1417.

17. Intercontinental Press , ]n\y \^ , 1976, p. 1092.

18. Intercontinental Press, March 29, 1976, pp. 484-485.

Chapter 6

Terrorist Activities in Europe

1 . Trotskyite Terrorist International.

2. Internal Information Bulletin, January, 1972, No. 1 in 1972.

3. Ibid.

4. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 14, August,
1973.

5. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, No. 4, April, 1973.

6. Report of the Fact-Finding Commission of the United Secretariat on the
internal situation within the International Marxist Group, British section of
the Fourth International, March 12, 1972, pp. 18, 22.

7. Ibid.,pp. 11, 13.

8. Mary-Alice Waters Memo, January 15, 1976, Report by Stateman and
minutes of United Secretariat.

9. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 17, October,
1973, pp. 15-17.

10. Ibid., pp. 37-38.

11. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Volume X, No. 23,
November, 1973, p. 10.

12. Intercontinental Press, July 21 , 1975.

0*1

13. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 3, April, 1971, p. 28.

14. Report by Mary- Alice Waters to the SWP National Committee,
June 23, 1974, International Information Bulletin, No. 8 in 1974, August

1974.

15. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 6, October

1975, p. II.

16. Memorandum to Leninist-Trotskyist Faction Steering Committee from
Mary- Alice Waters, November 1, 1975; Appendix contains text of letter.

17. Intercontinental Press, Vol. 8, No. 36, November 2, 1970, p. 935.

Chapter 7

Terrorist Activities in the Middle East

1. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 1, January
1975, p. 4; Minutes of the November 23-24, 1975, meeting of the United
Secretariat. Appendix II, Memorandum to members of the Leninist-
Trotskyist Faction Steering Committee from Mary-Alice Waters, Decem-
ber 19, 1975.

2. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 21, November

1973, p. 22.

3. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 1, January
1975, p. 4.

4. Inprecor, April 29, 1976, p. 27.

5. Inprecor, April 1, 1976, p. 20.

6. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 5, April 1974,

p. 22.

7. Intercontinental Press, September 8, 1975, p. 1163.

8. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 6, August 1971, p. 20.

9. Ibid.

10. Young Socialist Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 6, December

1974, p. 27.

11. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. I, January

1975, p. 4.

Chapter 8

Terrorist Activities in North America

1. International Information Bulletin, No. 3, April 1971, p. 28.

2. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 1, January
1975, p. 4.

3. Transnational Link, June 1976, p. 4.

Chapter 9

Trotskyite Splits and Splinter Groups

1 . Tim Wohlforth, The Struggle for Marxism in the United States, Bulletin
Publications, New York, p. 54.

2. Spartacist League, Marxist Bulletin No. 4, Parts 1 and 2, Expulsion
from the Socialist Workers Party.”

3. Spartacist, Winter 1973-4, pp. 28-32.

4. Workers World, March, 1959.

5 Deirdre Griswold, A Brief Resume of the Ideology of Workers World
Party, 1972, reprinted in “The Workers World Party and Its Front Organha-
tions,” Staff Study, April 1974, House Committee on Internal Security,
pp. 27-33.

6. Internal Bulletin of the International Secretariat of the Fourth Inter-
national, September 1959, reprinted in full in National Peace Action Coali-
tion (NPAC) and Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice (PCPJ), Part 4,
Hearings, House Committee on Internal Security, 1971, pp. 3746-3764.

7. Deirdre Griswold, oj!>. af.

8. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 1, April 1973, p. 4-5; SWP Dis-
cussion Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 18, July 1973.

9. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 6 in 1974, July 1974.

10. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975, p. 35.

1 1 . Idem.

12. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 1,. January
1975, p. 4.

13. Trotskyite Terrorist International, Hearings before Senate Subcom-
mittee on Internal Security, July 1975, p. 84.

14. Internal Information Bulletin, No. 9 in 1976, July 1976, pp. 3-4.

Note: The Socialist Workers Party Discussion Bulletin, The Internal Informa-
tion Bulletin, The International Internal Discussion Bulletin, and The Interna-
tional Information Bulletin are internal publications of the Socialist Workers
Party and the Fourth International available only to members.

Chapter 10

The Socialist Workers Party — An Update

1 . International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 20, October 1973,
page 31-32; International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 5, April,
1974, page 11-14.

2. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 9, July, 1973,
page 1 1 .

3. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 8, December,
1976, page 7.

4. Ibid, page 1 1 .

5. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 8, June 1973,
page 1 1 .

6. Internal Information Bulletin, January 1 972, No. 1 , page 4, 1 1 .

7. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 7, June 1975, page 2.

8. Internal Information Bulletin, Sept. 1976, No. 10, page 39.

9. Ibid, page 10 and 39.

10. SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 6, July 1976, page 9.

11. Internal Information Bulletin, April 1976, No. 6, page 42.

12. Ibid, page 8.

13. Education for Socialists, a publication issued by the National Education
Department of the Socialist Workers Party reprinted a large number of docu-
ments concerning the 1951-54 international faction fight. The documents were
printed as a series called Towards a History of the Fourth International, Parts
3 and 4, each part consisting of four volumes.

14. Internal Information Bulletin, April 1976, No. 6, page 21.

15. Trotskyite Terrorist International, Testimony of Herbert Romerstein
before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, July 24, 1975, page 84-86.

16. International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 5, November
1976, page 7.

17. Internal Information Bulletin, Sept. 1976, No. 10, pages 43, 34, 19.

18. Internal Information Bulletin, Dec. 1976, No. 15, page 9.

19. Internal Information Bulletin, Feb. 1976, No. 2, page 7.

20. Internal Information Bulletin, April 1976, No. 6, page 31.

21. Ibid, page 38.

22. Internal Information Bulletin, Sept. 1976, No. 10, page 11.

23. Jack Barnes and Joseph Hansen reported to the Political Committee of
the SWP on discussions that they had had in October, 1976, with the Political
Committee of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Fourth
International. One of the agreements was to coordinate activities against a rival
Trotskyite group in England led by Gerry Healy. Wohlforth had been the leader
of the American affiliate of Healy’ s group. Barnes and Hansen said;

“As to concrete areas of collaboration, we discussed first of all the importance
of a public meeting scheduled for January 14 to condemn the Healyite slanders
against leaders of the international and of the SWP. George Novack and Tim
Wohlforth are scheduled to speak at this meeting, along with Ernest Mandel,
Pierre Lambert, and others. Another proposal of the IMG comrades is that they
build a tour for Tim Wohlforth as part of an offensive to further isolate the
Healy forces.” (Internal Information Bulletin, Dec. 1976, No. 15, page 9.)

24. Internal Information Bulletin, Sept. 1976, No. 10, page 11.

Appendices

Appendices to Chapter 2

Appendix 1

(Compiled from Internal Information Bulletin, No. 2 in 1975, pp. 10-11)
Regular members of the SWP National Committee selected at the 27th
National Convention of the Socialist Workers Party, August 17-21, 1975:

Jack Barnes, Nelson Blackstock, George Breitman, Joel Britton, Peter Camejo,
Pearl Chertov, Clifton DeBerry, Maceo Dixon.

Dick (Richard Catarino) Garza, Fred Halstead, A1 Hansen, Gus Horowitz,
Dougjenness, Linda Jenness, Lew Jones, Carol Lipman.

Frank Lovell, Caroline Lund, Wendy Lyons, Malik Miah, Derrick Morrison,
Andrew Pulley, Harry Ring, Bev Scott.

Larry Seigle, Ed Shaw, Barry Sheppard, Syd Stapleton, Betsey Stone, Tony
Thomas, Jean Tussey, Mary- Alice Waters, Nat Weinstein.

Alternate members of the SWP National Committee selected at the 1975
National Convention are:

John Benson, Frank Boehm, Steve Chainey, Steve Chase, Les Evans, Rich
Finkel, Gerry Foley, John Hawkins.

Ed Heisler, Lynn Henderson, Susan LaMont, Dick McBride, Jeff Mackler, Sam
Manuel, Ray Markey.

Barbara Matson, Andrea Morell, Omari Musa, Willie Mae Reid, DickRoberts,
Olga Rodriquez, Peter Seidman.

Katherine Sojourner, Baxter Smith, Dan Styron, Pedro Vasquez, Judy White.

The members of the National Control Commission, the group responsible
for security and party discipline, are:

Peggy Brundy, Anna Chester, Wayne Clover, Helen Scheer.

Appendix 2

(Compiled from SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, June 1975,

P-51.)

Regular members of the SWP National Committee selected at the August
1973, SWP National Convention:

Jack Barnes, Charles Bolduc, George Breitman, Joel Britton, Peter Camejo,
Pearl Chertov, Clifton DeBerry, Dick Garza.

Fred Halstead, A1 Han$en, Joe Hansen, Gus Horowitz, Doug Jenness, Linda
Jenness, Joe Johnson, Lew Jones.

Carol Lipman, Frank Lovell, Derrick Morrison, Harry Ring, Larry Seigle,

Art Sharon, Ed Shaw, Barry Sheppard, Betsey Stone, Tony Thomas, Jean Tussey,
Mary- Alice Waters, Nat Weinstein.

Alternate members of the SWP National Committee selected at the 1973
National Convention:

John Benson, Nelson Blackstock, Frank Boehm, Maceo Dixon, Les Evans,
John Hawkins, Lynn Henderson, Linda Jenness.

Susan LaMont, Caroline Lund, Wendy Lyons, Dick McBride, Jeff Mackler,
Andrea Morell, Andrew Pulley, Dick Roberts.

Bev Scott, Peter Seidman, Syd Stapleton, Dan Styron, Judy White, David
Wulp.

Advisory members of the SWP National Committee (this position for
elderly leaders abolished in 1975) selected at 1973 convention:

Milton Alvin, James Cannon, B. Chester, Farrell Dobbs, Asher Harer.

Tom Kerry, J. Liang, George Novack, Evelyn Reed.

The 1973 National Control Commission members were:

Anna Chester, D. Ferguson, B. Matson, Helen Scheer.

Appendix 3

(Compiled from SWP Discussion Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 4, May 1973, p. 5)
Regular members of the SWP National Committee selected at the 1971
SWP National Convention were:

Jack Barnes, George Breitman, Joel Britton, Peter Camejo, Pearl Chertov,
Oscar Coover, Clifton DeBerry, Farrell Dobbs.

Dick Garza, Fred Halstead, A1 Hansen, Joe Hansen, Robert Himmel, Gus
Horowitz, Dougjenness, Joe Johnson.

Lew Jones, Frank Lovell, George Novack, Harry Ring, Art Sharon, Edward
Shaw, Barry Sheppard, Betsey Stone, Jean Tussey, Mary-Alice Waters, Nat
Weinstein.

Alternate SWP National Committee members in 1971 were:

John Benson, Charles Bolduc, Tony Camejo, Edwards, Les Evans, Lynn
Henderson, Herman Kirsh.

Tom Leonard, Carol Lipman, Sarah Lovell, Mary Lou Montauk, Derrick
Morrison, Andrew Pulley, Dick Roberts.

Charles Scheer, Bev Scott, Larry Seigle, Evelyn Sell, Dan Styron, Tony
Thomas, Judy White, David Wulp.

Advisory SWP National Committee members in 1971 were:

Milton Alvin, James Cannon, B. Chester, Asher Harer.

Tom Kerry, J. Liang, Evelyn Reed, Larry Trainor.

Appendix 4

Socialist Workers Party Political Committee 1966-75

On May 4, 1975, the SWP National Committee approved a motion that the
Political Committee consist of 12 persons:

Jack Barnes, SWP National Secretary: George Breitman, Peter Camejo, A1
Hansen, Doug Jenness, Frank Lovell.

Ed Shaw, Larry Seigle, Barry Sheppard, SWP Organization Secretary; Tony
Thomas, Mary- Alice Waters, YSA National Executive Committee member.

The 1973-74 Political Committee included:

Jack Barnes, George Breitman, Joel Britton (transferred to Illinois), Peter
Camejo, Farrell Dobbs (retired), A1 Hansen, Joe Hansen (retired). Gus Horowitz
(transferred to Paris), Doug Jenness.

Lew Jones (transferred to California), Tom Kerry (retired), Frank Lovell,
Derrick Morrison (transferred to Pennsylvania), George Novack (retired), Ed
Shaw, Barry Sheppard, Betsey Stone (transferred to Chicago as field organizer),
Mary- Alice Waters.

The 1971 Political Committee members were:

Jack Barnes, George Breitman, Joel Britton, Peter Camejo, Farrell Dobbs,
Clifton DeBerry, Fred Halstead, A1 Hansen, Joe Hansen, Gus Horowitz.

Doug Jenness, Lew Jones, Frank Lovell, George Novack, Harry Ring, Ed Shaw,
Barry Sheppard, Betsey Stone, Mary- Alice Waters.

In 1969, Political Committee members were:

Jack Barnes, George Breitman, Clifton DeBerry, Farrell Dobbs, Fred Halstead,
Joe Hansen.

Tom Kerry, George Novack, Harry Ring, Ed Shaw, Barry Sheppard.

In 1966 and 1968 the Political Committee members were:

Jack Barnes, Clifton DeBerry, Farrell Dobbs, Fred Halstead, Joe Hansen.

Tom Kerry, George Novack, Ed Shaw, Barry Sheppard, YSA representative.

Appendices to Chapter 3

Appendix 1

Partial List of Sponsors from
PRDF Letterhead Dated September 30, 1973
National secretary: Syd Stapleton.

National field secretaries: Michael Amal, Janice Lynn, and Catherine
Perkus.

Sponsors:

Eric Bentley, Abe Bloom, Nat’l Peace Action Coalition.

Ann Braden, Southern Patriot.

Carl Braden, Southern Patriot.

Dr. Noam Chomsky.

Ruby Dee.

Jules Feiffer.

Ruth Gage-Colby, Women’s Int’l. League for Peace & Freedom.

Vincent Hallinan.

Dr. Robert Heilbroner.

Nat Hentoff.

Philip Hirschkop, Chairman, Va. American Civil Liberties Union.

Dr. Salvador Luria.

Conrad Lynn, Nat’l. Conference of Black Lawyers.

Dwight Macdgnald.

David Me Reynolds, War Resisters League.

Arthur Miller.

George Novack.

Dr. Linus Pauling.

John Roberts, Director, Mass. American Civil Liberties Union.

Prof. David Rosenberg, Harvard Law School.

Margaret Sloan, Nat’l. Black Feminist Organization.

Gloria Steinem.

I. F. Stone.

Edith Tiger, Director, Nat’l. Emergency Civil Liberties Comm.

William Turner, ex-FBI agent.

Dr. George Wald.

Dr. Howard Zinn.

Appendix 2

Staff and Sponsors from PRDF
Letterhead Dated June 15, 1976

National secretary: Syd Stapleton; National Staff; Ripp Dawson, Geoff
Mirelowitz, Claire Moriarty, Cathy Perkus, Margaret Winter; Advisory
board: Robert Allen, Philip Berrigan, Noam Chomsky, Ronald Dellums,
Robert Heilbroner, Diana Bonnor Lewis, Eugene McCarthy, George Novack,
and Edith Tiger.

Sponsors, Partial List
Sam Abbott.

Rev. Ralph Abernathy, pres., SCLC.

Artha Adair, v.p.. Industrial Union Div., Oregon AFL-CIO.

Ruth Adams, exec, dir., Illinois ACLU.

Philip Agee.

Am. Fed. of Govt. Employees (AFGE) Local 1061, Los Angeles, AFL-CIO.
AFGE Local 1395, Chicago, AFL-CIO.

Am. Fed. of St. Cty. & Mun. Employees (AFSCME) Local 1497, Detroit,
AFL-CIO.

AFSCME Local 1880, Detroit, AFL-CIO.

AFSCME Local 1930, New York, AFL-CIO.

AFSCME Local 2000, Chicago, AFL-CIO.

Eqbal Ahmad, Harrisburg 7.

Robert Allen, ed.. The Black Scholar.

Louis Antal, pres., Dist. 5, UMWA.

James Aronson.

Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate.

Frank Askin, corp. secy., ACLU.

Dennis Banks, Am. Indian Movement.

Richard Barnett, Inst, for Policy Studies.

Rev. Willie Barrow, v.p.. Operation PUSH.

Geraldine Bean, regent, U. of Colorado.

Clyde Bellecourt, Am. Indian Movement.

Eric Bentley.

Berkeley City Council.

Louise Berman.

Daniel Berrigan.

Alvah Bessie.

Black Action Society, U. of Pittsburgh.

Abe Bloom, Nat’l. Peace Action Coalition.

Bro. Herbert X. Blyden.

Julian Bond.

Anne Braden.

Neal Bratcher, dir., AFSCME, Dist. Council 19, Illinois, AFL-CIO.
Thomas Buckley, Jr., pres., Cleveland State U. Law School.

Ned Bush, exec, v.p., E. V. Debs Foundation.

Alexander Calder.

Louisa Calder.

Jose Calderon, La Raza Unida party, Colorado.

Kay Camp.

Art Carter, Contra Costa City, Labor Council, AFL-CIO.

Charles Cassell.

Owen Chamberlain, Nobel Laureate.

Cesar Chavez.

Robert Chrisman, pub.. The Black Scholar.

Ramsey Clark.

John Henrik Clarke, Hunter Coll.

Cleveland ACLU.

Walter Collins, exec, dir., SCEF.

Audrey Colom, pres., Nat’l. Women’s Political Caucus.

Henry Steele Commager.

Congress of Afrikan People.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).

Vem Countryman, Harvard U.

Alberta Dannells.

Ed Davis, Nat’l. Bd., ADA.

Ossie Davis.

Emile de Antonio.

Howard Deck, pres., AFSCME Local 590, Philadelphia, AFL-CIO.

Ruby Dee.

Michael Delligatti, pres., Amal. Clothing Wkrs., Local 86, Pittsburgh,
AFL-CIO.

David Dellinger.

Detroit Welfare Wkrs. Union.

Frank Donner.

Norman Dorsen, gen’l. counsel, ACLU.

Douglas Dowd.

John Duncan, exec, dir., Texas CLU.

Mahmoud El-Kati, Malcolm X Pan- African Inst.

Daniel Ellsberg.

A. Whitney Ellsworth, pub.. The New York Review of Books.

Edward Ericson.

Assemblyman Arthur O. Eve, New York.

John Henry Faulk.

Jules Feiffer.

Abe Feinglass, v.p., Amal. Meat Ctrs. & Butcher Wkmen. of No. America,
AFL-CIO.

Lawrence Ferlinghetti.

Jane Fonda.

Henry Foner, pres.. Fur, Leather & Machine Wkrs. Jt. Bd., New York
City, AFL-CIO.

Moe Foner, exec, secy., Dist. 1199, Drug & Hospital Union, New York
City, AFL-CIO.

Rep. Donald Fraser (D-Minn.).

Donald Freed.

Rev. Stephen Fritchman.

Erich Fromm.

Luis Fuentes.

Ruth Gage-Colby.

Charles Garry, atty.

Maxwell G^ismar.

Russell Gibbons, asst, ed.. Steel Labor, United Steelwkrs. of America,
AFL CIO.

Allen Ginsberg.

Jose Gonzales, La Raza Unida party, Colorado.

Rodolfo “Corky” Ck>nzales, Crusade for Justice.

Carlton Goodlett, ed., S.F. Sun Reporter.

Patrick Gorman.

Sanford Gottlieb, Sane.

Father Gerald Grant, World Federalists.

James Grant, Charlotte 3.

Francine dePlessix Gray.

Dick Gregory.

Gene Guerrero, Jr., pres., Atlanta ACLU.

Jose Angel Gutierrez, La Raza Unida party.

Andrew Hacker, Queens Coll.

Vincent Hallinan.

Morton Halperin.

Pete Hamill.

Timothy Harding, Calif. State U., Los Angeles.

Sheldon Hamick.

Rev. Dr. Donald Harrington.

Michael Harrington.

Rep. Michael Harrington (D-Mass.).

Tom Hayden.

Dorothy Healy.

Joseph Heller.

Nat Hentoff.

John Hersey.

Herbert Hill, NAACP labor dir.

Lennox Hinds, pres., Nat’l. Conf. of Black Lawyers.

Philip Hirschkop, atty.

Julius Hobson.

David Hoffman, exec, dir., AFSCME Local 96, San Francisco, AFL-CIO.
Robert Horn, pres. , Arizona NAACP.

H. Stuart Hughes.

Josephine Hulett, Nat’l. Comm, on Household Employment.

Human Rights Party, Michigan.

David Isbell, vice chmn., ACLU.

Abdeenjabara, atty.

Paul Jacobs.

Almeta Johnson, pres., Cleveland Black Women Lawyers.

Russell Johnson, New Eng. coord., AFSC.

Walter Johnson, secy-treas.. Retail Clerks Local 1100, San Francisco,
AFL-CIO.

Irv Joyner, Comm, for Racial Justice.

David Kairys, atty.

Louis Kampf, M.I.T.

Murray Kempton.

Florynce Kennedy, Feminist party.

Rev. Muhammad Kenyatta, Black Economic Develop. Conf.

John Kerry.

State Rep. Mel King, Mass.

Kings Cty. Dem. Coalition, New York City.

Fletcher Knebel.

Patrick Knight, pres., Soc. Service Employees Union Local 371, New York
City, AFL-CIO.

William Kunstler, atty.

Mark Lane.

Ring Lardner, Jr.

Christopher Lasch, U. of Rochester.

Norman Lear.

Assemblyman Franz Leichter, New York.

Sidney Lens.

John Leonard, The New York Times.

David Levine.

Mickey Levine.

A. H. Levitan, atty.

Robert Jay Lifton.

Viveca Lindfors.

David Livingston, pres., Dist. 65, Distributive Wkrs. of America.

Salvador Luria, Nobel Laureate.

Florence Luscomb.

Staughton Lynd.

Conrad Lynn.

Bradford Lyttle.

Dwight MacDonald.

Olga Madar, pres. , Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW).

Norman Mailer.

Albert Maltz.

John Marks.

Rabbi Robert J. Marx.

Father Paul Mayer.

Kevin McCarthy.

Charles T. McKinney, atty.

David McReynolds, War Resisters League.

Alan McSurley.

Margaret McSurley.

Carey McWilliams.

Russell Means, Am. Indian Movement.

Michael & Robert Meeropol.

Mich. Fed. of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

Arthur Miller.

Joseph Miller, Philadelphia SANE.

Merle Miller.

Kate Millett.

Minn. Fed. of Teachers Local 59, AFL-CIO.

Minn. Women’s Political Caucus.

Rep. Parren Mitchell (D-Md.).

Jessica Mitford.

Rev. Howard Moody.

Howard Moore, atty.

Jane Moore, Majority Report.

Very Rev. James Parks Morton.

Nat’l Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression.

National Lawyers Guild.

Huey P. Newton, Black Panther party.

Kaye Northcott , ed . , T exas Observer .

No. Calif. Nat’l. Women’s Political Caucus.

Phil Ochs.

William O’Kain, secy-treas., AFSCME Local 1644, Atlanta, AFL-CIO.

Operation Push.

John Oster, pres.. Lake Cty., Ohio AFL-CIO.

Gilbert Padilla, secy-treas., UFW, AFL-CIO.

Grace Paley.

Basil Paterson.

Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate. |

Juan Jose Pena, La Raza Unida party. New Mexico.

Peoples Party.

Philadelphia Resistance. |

Channing Phillips.

Suzy Post, Nat’l Bd., ACLU. j

Rev. Robert Pruitt.

Richard Purple, pres. , Twin Cities AAUP .

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY).

Marcus Raskin, Inst, for Policy Studies.

Paula Reimers, v.p., AFT Local 2000, Detroit, AFL-CIO.

David Rein, atty.

Malvina Reynolds.

A1 Richmond.

Myrian Richmond, Black Women’s Coal. , Atlanta.

Ramona Ripston, exec. dir. So. Calif. ACLU.

John Roberts, dir., Massachusetts CLU.

Rev. Frank Robertson, All South Church, Washington, D.C.

Margery Rosenthal, dir., Nat’l Comm, to Reopen the Rosenberg Case.

Annette T. Rubinstein.

Muriel Rukeyser.

Kirkpatrick Sale.

Beulah Sanders, chwmn, NWRO.

San Francisco NOW.

Dore Schary.

Franz Schurmann, U. of Calif.

Pete Seeger.

Lauren Selden, exec, dir.. Wash. ACLU.

Evan Shirley, exec. dir. Hawaii ACLU.

Bessie Shute, chwmn., Philadelphia CLUW Affirmative Action Comm.
Mulford Q. Sibley, U. of Minnesota.

Paul Siegel, Long Island U.

Sol Silverman, pres. U. Furniture Wkrs. Local 140, New York City,
AFL-CIO.

Dick Sklar.

Margaret Sloan, Nat’l. Black Feminist Org.

William Sloane, College Young Dems.

Soc. Services Local 535, California, AFL-CIO.

Susan Sontag.

Ann Sperry.

Paul Sperry.

Benjamin Spock.

Gloria Steinem.

Oscar Steiner, Nat’l. Advisory Council ACLU.

Rep. Louis Stokes (D-Oh).

Chuck Stone.

I. F. Stone.

I F. W. Stover, U.S. Farmers Assn.

II Kenneth Sullivan, Oh. NAACP Youth Advisor.

1 Percy Sutton.

1 Paul Sweezy, ed. , Monthly Review.

Harold Taylor.

Studs Terkel.

Andres Rodriguez Torres, La Raza Unida party, Los Angeles.

Twin Cities NOW.

Edith Van Horn, int’l rep., UAW.

Community Action Program.

Robert Van Lierop, Africa Info. Service.

Ernesto Vigil, Crusade for Justice.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate.

Robert Wall, ex- FBI agent.

Gerald Walker, The New York Times Magazine.

Eli Wallach.

Bishop Alvin Ward.

Mary Watkins, J. B. Johnson Defense Comm.

Jack Weir, pres., Cleveland Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO.

Rabbi Joseph Weizenbaum.

Rexford Weng, v.p.. Mass. AFL-CIO.

Warren Widener, mayor, Berkeley, California.

Herb Williams, Cal. State U., San Francisco.

Rev. Hosea Williams, Atlanta SCLC.

John T. Williams, IBT Local 208, Los Angeles.

Robert F. Williams.

Clifford Wilson, pres., St. Louis Coalition of Black Trade Unionists.
Wilpf, St. Louis.

1 nn

i mi

Rep. Andrew Young (D-Ga).

Quentin Young, MCHR.

Gilbert Zicklin, pres., Maine CLU.

Howard Zinn, organizations for identification.

Appendix 3

[Party Builder, SWP Organizational Discussion Bulletin, August 1974]
Chapter Building Perspective for USLA Work

(By Gary Prevost and Marvin Johnson, Twin Cities Branch)

The following report will attempt to show how an ongoing chapter of
USLA was organized in Minneapolis during the past year in the context of the
openings which have occurred in the wake of the September 11, 1973 coup
in Chile. It should be noted from the very beginning that while the authors
are writing almost exclusively from experience in the Twin Cities we do not
think the Minneapolis experience should be unique, and a major purpose of
the report is to stimulate the forming of USLA chapters in cities where they
do not now exist.

In October 1973, USLA work in the Twin Cities was reevaluated and three
basic goals were established. They were: (1) to establish the authority of
USLA in a broad constituency, to include church leaders, union officials,
community leaders, and politicians; (2) to organize visible, periodic, public
events which serve to keep the issue of Chile alive in the Twin Cities; (3) to
develop a chapter of USLA with regular meetings, sound finances, ongoing
activities, and most importantly, a core of activists.

Today, more than nine months since the goals were set the following results
have been achieved. The Minnesota USLA chapters have a core of 10-15 in-
dependent activists. The chapter meets bi-weekly, even now during the
summer months, and sustains itself financially through contributions and
special fundraising projects.

The chapter is in the process of formalizing a local sponsors list, which will
reflect the breadth of authority USLA has achieved. The list includes Rev.
John Sinclair, President church executive; Joe Bash, Director of Student
Affairs, American Lutheran Church; Rev. Vince Hawkinson, Grace Univer-
sity Lutheran Church; Fran Moscello, Spanish Department, Hamline Univer-
sity; Mulford Sibley, Political Science Department, University of Minnesota;
Alfredo Gonzalez, Chicano Studies, University of Minnesota; Larry Grimes,
Spanish Department, University of Minnesota; Minnesota Democratic -
Farmer Labor Party. Others are considering becoming sponsors, including
the president of ADA and a member of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Board.
Rep. Donald Fraser, U.S. Congress, has worked closely with us, although he
has not yet agreed to be a sponsor. USLA’s authority locally is also shown by

102

people who are interested in doing political work on Latin America
naturally bringing their concerns to USLA.

The list of ongoing activities sustained by the chapter is impressive, in-
cluding: a) a locally initiated political prisoner case; b) consistent interven-
tions at Latin American and other political events. Interventions have in-
volved the sale of approximately 50 USLA Reporters per month, and a total
of over 2,000 signatures on various petitions for Chilean political prisoners.
During the year USLA used three different petitions. USLA felt it was
important that individuals coming to programs have a personal thing to do.
Initially USLA used a list of 34 political prisoners, followed in January with
the Chile 7, and, around May 11, used the list put together for that action;
c) an investigation of complicity between the University of Minnesota and the
junta controlled University of Chile; d) outreach to meetings of trade unions,
church groups, and political and community groups; e) publication of a
regular newsletter, which has produced a consistent flow of contributions;
f) a telegram campaign in defense of the PST in Argentina and political
prisoners in the Dominican Republic.

Evolution of the Chapter

Having outlined our original goals and what has been now achieved we
would like to describe in some detail the evolution of USLA work in the Twin
Cities.

During the 1972-1973 school year the work of USLA was centered on two
national speaking tours, Daniel Zadunaisky of Argentina and Mary Elizabeth
Harding, a former Maryknoll nun who was a political prisoner in Bolivia. The
two tours were successfully conducted in the Twin Cities and began to show
the potential for ongoing work. Daniel gave a well-attended talk at the
University of Minnesota and the USLA was used publicly for the first time in
Minnesota.

The Mary Elizabeth Harding tour of May 1973 was highlighted by a meet-
ing of over 100 at the University of Minnesota Newman Center, which was
attended largely by the adult Catholic community. The meeting was co-
sponsored by the Sister Council and Priest’s Senate of the St. Paul Archdio-
cese. The Harding meeting began a good relationship with the Newman Cen-
ter, which remains in effect today. Though a collection was taken and 35
names were collected for ongoing work, no follow-up was attempted until
after the Chile coup.

An emergency picket line was called following the coup on last Septem-
ber 11; about 40 persons marched on the picket. Outside of USLA, the party
and the YSA, the most significant involvement was that of the Communist
Party.

Unfortunately, there was no consistent USLA work done following the
initial demonstration largely because there was no major assignment made to

103

the USLA chapter. The shortcoming was not remedied until mid- October,
but not before considerable damage had been done and USLA had been put
in a difficult position vis-a-vis our opponents, including the Chile Solidarity
Committee (CSC).

The Chile Solidarity Committee, headed by the CP, organized a Chile
eyewitness speaking tour in early November and due to USLA’s weak position,
completely excluded us to the point of our not being allowed a literature
table at the major events. USLA did organize a successful intervention into
several of the meetings, with sales of the Reporter and a petition on political
prisoners. The CSC organized successful meetings financially but did not
bother to get a mailing list.

The first public activity of the Twin Cities USLA was the national Linda
Wine tour. Coming directly on the heels of the CSC tour, it was not terribly
successful but was a beginning.

In the absence of any nationally planned action USLA decided to initiate
a film tour on Minnesota campuses to raise money and establish its authority
over the CSC. USLA worked to organize the film tour and a symposium at the
University of Minnesota for about two months, beginning in early December.
During that time CSC committed suicide when the Communist Party pulled
out of it, and the remaining independents lacked the organizational skill or
desire to maintain the group. Ever since CSC’s demise USLA has remained
the only Chile group in the Twin Cities. CSC’s most active independent now
works with USLA.

The film tour, using When the People Awake and Campamento, was the
first major step forward for USLA. The films were shown ten times on eight
campuses to over 900 people. A profit was realized, which put local USLA on
sound financial footing and permitted a contribution to the USLA national
office. The tour allowed USLA to greatly expand its mailing list and provided
contacts throughout the state of Minnesota. A chapter of USLA was formed
at Mankato State College as a result of the tour.

In connection with the film tour, a symposium was organized at the
University of Minnesota, the largest campus in the region. The major purpose
of the symposium was to involve Latin American Studies faculty and students,
who we found are more receptive than the average faculty and students to the
USLA campaigns. The symposium firmly established USLA as a campus
organization and significantly raised its prestige among the Latin American
Studies faculty, which has been very important in many current campaigns.

Unfortunately, the tour did not solidify any new activists for USLA in the
Twin Cities, but the core of the chapter began immediately to make plans for
another film tour in the spring.

At the same time, the national tour of former Swedish ambassador to
Chile, Harald Edelstam, was announced by the national USLA. The signifi-
cance of the Edelstam tour for Minneapolis USLA was the realization of

broader trade union, church, and political support which had been projected
earlier but not achieved. A broadly endorsed city wide rally featuring Edel-
stam drew about 250 people and helped to raise over $1,000 for the national
Chile Appeal fund.

The second film tour, which featured Chile: With Poems and Guns, was
conducted in late April. As with the earlier tour the film was accompanied by
an USLA speaker who discussed the current Chilean events and USLA
projects. The tour was less successful in some ways than the earlier tour as it
drew but 350 in ten showings and raised a modest profit for the chapter.
However, the most important result of the tour was the solidification of six to
eight activists who attended the showings and indicated their desire to do
ongoing work with USLA. Almost all of them are now active in the chapter.

The May 1 1 national action provided an opportunity for outreach similar
to the Edelstam tour but with a new element, the existence of a working
coalition which included such groups as New American Movement (NAM)
and Fellowship of Reconciliation.

The May 11 action in the Twin Cities was successful with 175 people turn-
ing out as compared to the demonstration of 40 immediately following the
coup. One drawback of the May 11 action was that because the action was
organized through a May 11th action committee, which held open planning
meetings, the ultraleft sects were given too much power in the coalition. In
retrospect, we feel that the action could have been just as broad if organized
under the auspices of USLA.

Current Ongoing Work

Since the May 11 action the work of the USLA chapter has actually in-
creased rather than dropping off as might be expected following an action.
However, USLA had the perspective of maintaining ongoing activities, and
with a good number of activists willing to do work, it has organized several
important activities.

Since May 11 USLA has done its first consistent labor union outreach.
USLA has made presentations and had resolutions on Chile passed by the
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Local 59, Robbinsdale Federation of
Teachers, University of Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Local 2408, and
the Minnesota Federation of Teachers State Executive Council. The Min-
neapolis and Robbinsdale Federations are the first and third largest locals
in Minnesota. We are presently making plans to present resolutions to several
other union locals in Minnesota.

A special campaign for a Chilean political prisoner vdth Minnesota con-
nections has underlined the authority of the local chapter. The prisoner, Galo
Gomez, received a masters’ degree from the University of Minnesota in 1969
and was known to many people here. He was vice-president of the University

of Concepcion at the time of his arrest. After getting many letters on behalf
of Gomez through literature tables for a month, the chapter decided to step
up the campaign. Within ten days emergency telegrams were obtained from
many prominent professors at the University of Minnesota, and also from
Senators Kennedy and Humphrey and Congressman Donald Fraser. The
campaign included a telephone call to the prison camp in Chile where Gomez
is being held. The call was made by a faculty member in the Spanish depart-

ment. ...

University of Minnesota activists working with USLA are investigating an
agreement between the University of Minnesota and the University of Chile
which may involve the medical school, the agricultural school, and the Mayo
clinic. It appears that the agreement went unimplemented during Allende’s
rule but was recently renewed following the secret visit of junta representa-
tives to the Twin Cities. The chapter feels that the agreement may provide an
excellent basis for an anti -complicity campaign at the University of Minnesota
next fall.

Another area of work which has expanded since May 11 has been church
outreach. Since an excellent reception at the University of Minnesota New-
man Center in January, the chapter has been aware that outreach work
toward the churches could be very productive. USLA found it necessary to
take its program to the individual churches that are sympathetic, so it re-
quires considerable persistence to arrange the engagements. The program
consists of the Chile film Campamento and speaker from USLA. Several
church presentations have been made since May 11 with the most sympa-
thetic being at Lutheran and Catholic churches. Church social action
committees and sympathetic pastors have been the best contacts for USLA.
The church visits can be productive in obtaining numerous signatures on
petitions and letters, in addition to financial support. USLA may use a slide
show prepared by NICH (Non-Intervention in Chile) in future programs.

Work with church officials can also be important for giving breadth and
authority to the USLA committee. Recently, USLA has had conversations
with officials of both the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches about their
role on behalf of victims of repression in Latin America, particularly Chile.
They are proposing that an ad hoc committee on Chile be formed m their
churches.

USLA has long recognized that support from the Chicano community can
be an important boost to our work. Though the Twin Cities Chicano
community is relatively small, USLA has actively attempted to involve
Chicano community groups. USLA is now achieving some success, through its
presence at a community fair. USLA has arranged meetings with two
significant groups, the Spanish Speaking Cultural Club and the Brown
Berets.

Recruitment

It should be noted that only through continuous activity will USLA result
in recruitment to the party and the YSA. Some success has already been
achieved in Minneapolis. One has joined the YSA, while a couple of others
are interested in attending our activities. The presence of an USLA chapter
also can provide new YSAers with an important assignment with which to
integrate themselves into the work of the YSA.

In Summary

In summary, we feel that the most important lesson for USLA work stem-
ming from the Twin Cities work is the importance of the chapter-building
perspective. The chapter- building perspective is a long-range one which re-
quires considerable patience and hard work on the part of the initial core of
activists. As the report noted, the Minneapolis chapter did not actually
obtain a number of independent activists until six months after the chapter
had been initiated and several successful events had been organized.

The key factor in projecting a chapter is the formation of ongoing projects.
Demonstrations and national speaking tours are simply not enough to sustain
an ongoing chapter. Such events will be better organized if a chapter exists
but they will not produce a successful chapter by themselves. Therefore, the
chapters must initiate local activities. The report has described in some detail
such activities in the Twin Cities— film tours, local political prisoner case,
complicity case, interventions in Latin American events. Projects may vary
from area to area, but the openings exist wherever there are branches.

Finally, the potential for ongoing Chile work clearly exists nine months
after the coup, as shown by both activists willing to work for USLA and the
prominent individuals willing to support Chile projects. Some may say that
the Minneapolis USLA experience is unique, but such is not the case.
Actually, Minneapolis has many objective limitations, the most important of
which is the lack of any substantial Latin community to support the work.
The objective conditions are ripe for the formation of USLA chapters in many
more cities. All that is needed is a clear conception and commitment to
doing ongoing work rather than just organizing a demonstration on May 1 1
or September 1 1 .

Appendix to Chapter 5

Resolution passed at 10th World Congress of the Fourth International,
February, 1974, and expurgated from the text of the resolutions published in
Intercontinental Press, December 23, 1974. The secret resolution was pub-
lished in the International Internal Discussion Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 1,
January, 1975, p. 10.

[Point 36 of the majority resolution “Argentina: Political Crisis and Revo-
lutionary Perspectives” is published internally only, in accordance with a
motion adopted by a majority of the United Secretariat in May 1974.]

36, The World Congress draws a balance sheet on the organization recog-
nized at the Ninth World Congress as a sympathizing organization. It can
only be an extremely critical one.

First of all, the La Verdad group has publicly attacked several sections in
Latin America in its press, and especially some leaders of the International
who were guilty of defending the orientations decided on by the last World

Secondly, La Verdad has made clear its fundamental misunderstanding of
the necessities of armed struggle at the present stage of the class struggle in
Argentina, engaging in a political line that is in the first place purely syndi-
calist, and secondly, electoralist-for example, its election campaign m
which it maintained complete silence on the necessity to destroy the bourgeois
state apparatus.

Prepared to pay any price within its legalist perspective it reached an
agreement, on the basis of a centrist political line, for political and organiza-
tional fusion with the Coral faction of the PSA (Argentine Socialist Party), a
small left Social-Democratic current with no influence in the working class.
The new party, the PST (Socialist Workers Party), confronted Peronism with
a combination of purely propagandist positions and clearly opportunist
attitudes. For example, it appealed to Peron to “put himself at the head of
struggles”; it demanded that slates of FREJULI, the bourgeois Peronist party,
be made up of “80 percent workers candidates”; it demanded that Campora,
the bourgeois, form a government “with a majority working-class composi-
tion”; it carried on a respectful and responsible (sic) dialogue between Coral
and the bourgeois finance Minister (ielbard, etc., etc.

The daily practice of the PST reflects a tail-endist and legalistic concept of
building the party. It dodges the problems of armed struggle, of the violent
destruction of the bourgeois state, of the formation of workers militias, not
only in terms of present tasks but even in its programmatic formulations, as,
for example, in the La Verdad-PSA fusion protocol. In its press it conducts
no systematic propaganda for arming the workers, not even for workers self-
defense, It uses ambiguous formulas in its press that give the impression that
the proletariat could win simply through propaganda against the army,
directed to soldiers and noncommissioned officers, without necessarily form-
ing armed detachments of the proletariat and without armed confrontations
with the bourgeois repressive apparatus.

The PST has several thousand members and organized sympathizers. Most
are students and workers who sincerely want to struggle for socialism and who
sympathize with Trotskyism. Consequently, the World Congress favors main-
taining fraternal links between the Fourth International and the PST as a

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lawrence P. McDonald is the Democratic Congressman from the 7th District
of Georgia. He has served in Congress since January 1975.

Cong. McDonald was born in Atlanta, Ga. April 1, 1935. He completed his
pre-medical training at Davidson College in North Carolina and was accepted
to Emory University School of Medicine before his 18th birthday. In 1957 he
received a Doctor of Medicine Degree from Emory.

He spent four years in the United States Navy as a physician and Overseas
Flight Surgeon to Naval Squadrons in Iceland. He received the Air Force Com-
mendation Medal for his service in Iceland, completing his military service as a
Lieutenant Commander.

Dr. McDonald has devoted himself to fighting for the re-establishment of the
House Committee on Internal Security. He is highly regarded as an expert on
terrorist and violence-oriented groups. His reports in the Congressional Record
have been widely cited as a source of information on this topic.

Congressman McDonald has been a member of the National Council of the
John Birch Society since 1967. He describes himself as a Constitutionalist and
is the author of the book We Hold These Truths which expounds the basic prin-
ciples of the American Constitution.

THE ACU EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

— is a tax-exempt, educational organization devoted to advancing greater
awareness of America’s traditional values.

— conducts an energetic program of educational work with young people,
and other activities designed to improve public understanding of American
institutions.

— stages seminars for students featuring such speakers as Senator James
Buckley, Rep. Phil Crane, Rep. John Ashbrook, Rep. Jack Kemp, and
others.

—sponsors internships in Washington, D.C., for promising young people
concerned to preserve the values of the American system.

— publishes issue studies:

(available for $1.00 each)

The Human Cost of Communism in China, by Richard L Walker.
The Emerging Strategic Imbalance, by Sen. Harry Byrd, Adm.
Thomas Moorer, Gen. Daniel Graham and others
Federal Aid for Social Engineering in the Public Schools, by

Solveig Eggerz

The Meaning of the Bicentennial

Volume One: The People’s Bicentennial Commission, by Max

Friedman

The Case for Internal Security, by Frank McNamara

How to Cut the Budget: A Program for Fiscal Reform, by Rep. Phil

Crane

An Alternative Economic Plan: A Proposal for Growth Without
Inflation, by Senators James L. Buckley and James A. McClure
Detente and the Pending Strategic Crisis, by James E. Dornan, Jr.
The Failure of Federal Housing, by Richard Craswell
Vietnam at the Crossroads, by Jim Roberts
The Cause and Cure of Inflation, by David Levy

— If you would like further information about ERI and its programs, or
quantity orders of its publications, please write or call us at the address on
the inside front cover.

general libraries

THE UNIVERSITY

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Trotskyism and terror : the strategy of revolution"

See other formats