HOME
your socialist home on the internet
ABOUT US
who we are, what we do
NEWS & VIEWS
newspaper, articles, statements
THEORY
what is socialism, marxism
JOIN US!
joining, getting active
CONTACT US
branch directory
Y.S.A.
youth 4 socialist action
F.I.
socialists around the world
CULTURE
poetry, reviews, commentary
HISTORY
events & people from the past
SCIENCE
science, dialectics & more
LINKS
other important sites
WHAT'S NEW
listing of what's been recently added



Socialist Action Events

Socialist Action/
Canada

LUS/
Mexico




Below is a list of our Single Issue Feature Pages:
 

http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/cuba-trotsky.html

‘Socialism in one country’ and the Cuban Revolution

Below is an article by Celia Hart that is reprinted from the Cuban magazine Tricontinental. The translation is by Gerry Foley. It is preceded by an introdocution by Jeff Mackler, the National Secretary of Socialist Action/U.S.

Introduction
by Jeff Mackler

Below, we reprint a remarkable article calling for the rehabilitation in Cuba of Russian revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky. Written by Celia Hart, it appeared in the May 10, 2004, issue of Tricontinental, a leading Cuban journal published by the Organization in Solidarity with the Peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (OSPAAL).

The article as it appears here has been translated from the Spanish by Socialist Action international editor Gerry Foley.

Celia Hart is a member of the Cuban Communist Party and the daughter of Haydée Santamaria and Armando Hart, both historic leaders of the 1959 Cuban Revolution. Santamaria and Hart were among the initiators of the July 26th Movement and original members of the Central Committee of the refounded Communist Party of Cuba after the revolution.

Santamaria, along with President Fidel Castro, was a hero of the July 26, 1953, attack on the Moncada Garrison, the opening salvo of the revolutionary war that defeated the U.S.-backed regime of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and went on to establish Latin America's first workers state.

Armando Hart, who today serves as a member of Cuba's Council of State, has also commented recently on the question of Stalinism. His remarks were reported in the March 8, 2004, issue of the U.S. publication, The Militant.

In response to a recent comment that in the 1950s he had been an anti-communist, Hart responded, "No, I was anti-Stalinist because what was presented as socialism at that time did not correspond to the reality of our revolution." He and others, "became socialists in spite of the Soviet Union," he concluded.

It was at that time, Armando Hart explained, that he became familiar with the ideas of Lenin, the Bolshevik Party, and Leon Trotsky.

Celia Hart's article is an explicit and wide-ranging denunciation of Stalinism, the counterrevolutionary politics that came to dominate political and economic life in the Soviet Union following Joseph Stalin's rise to power in the middle and late 1920s. Stalin presided over the destruction of the Bolshevik Party and the soviet [workers council] institutions that had led the October 1917 Russian Revolution and established the world's first workers state.

Hart cites as evidence of the inherent reactionary nature of Stalinism the present capitalist orientation of the nations constituting the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. She asserts that "Stalinist pseudo-theories, such as Peaceful Coexistence, Socialist Realism, [and] Socialism in One Country, etc. have collapsed."

There is little doubt that Hart's article will be widely discussed among revolutionaries across the globe. Her reference to Trotsky's seminal work on Stalinism, "The Revolution Betrayed" as a key to understanding the evolution of the Soviet Union is perhaps the best starting point for students and practitioners of revolutionary politics today.

Written in 1936, "The Revolution Betrayed" was the first work to systematically explain why the Stalinist bureaucratic caste constituted a grave danger to the social conquests of the 1917 Russian Revolution. Trotsky explains in this book why Stalin's doctrine of "socialism in one country" and his associated notion of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism stood diametrically opposed to the fundamental tenets of Marxism. Stalin and the conservative bureaucratic caste that usurped power shortly after Lenin's death in 1924 utilized the notion of "socialism in one country" to subordinate the revolutionary struggles of workers in the USSR and across the globe to unprincipled agreements with capitalist governments and reformist parties and organizations.

In essence, revolutionary struggles outside the USSR in which Stalinist parties had influence were used as bargaining chips to be traded with world imperialism in return for capitalist stability on the one hand and concessions to maintain the power and privilege of the Soviet bureaucracy on the other.

"Socialism in one country" indeed meant opposition to socialism everywhere else, and inevitably, as Trotsky predicted, opposition to socialism in the Soviet Union. The Stalinists likewise defined "peaceful coexistence" as a permanent or long-term accommodation between world imperialism and the USSR, during which time the "peaceful evolution of the two opposed social systems" would demonstrate the merit of one over the other.

Lenin and Trotsky and the entire generation of Marxists who preceded them rejected even the possibility that world capitalism was capable of leading humanity through a period of peaceful evolution and development.

Isolated as revolutionary Cuba is today, Hart nevertheless correctly sees this classical Marxist proposition emerging with a vengeance as world imperialism embarks on yet another period of economic crises driven by ruthless competition for shrinking markets.

Hart sees a world capitalism driving working people to increasing misery while wars of plunder, mass murder, and environmental destruction mark the epoch.

For Hart, international solidarity aimed at the abolition of capitalism based on class struggle as opposed to Stalinist class collaboration must stand at the center of the program of revolutionaries today. The ideas of Trotsky, she concludes, are indispensable to this end.

In a relatively short and focused article such as Hart has written, it is inevitable that some formulations remain incomplete or inexact. This applies, for example, to Hart's very brief description of the politics of what she refers to as the "Bolivarian Revolution" of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

While Hart correctly observes that the Venezuelan process must become more radical if it is to succeed, she neglects to explain that the pro-capitalist Chavez regime, while undertaking several important social reforms, has shown no inclination to challenge the fundamental class relations that insure capitalist rule in that country. The construction of a revolutionary socialist party in Venezuela, dedicated to this end, is the prerequisite to the socialist revolution that Hart envisions.

Despite these ambiguities and inevitably incomplete formulations, Hart's contribution confirms once again that the Cuban Revolution is alive and well. Beleaguered but unbowed, the Cuban leadership retains its revolutionary and internationalist perspectives. These are premised on the construction of a world socialist order as the only way to insure humanity's survival and ability to enrich the quality of life for all.

Hart's call for a return to the legacy of Leon Trotsky and the program of the original Bolsheviks, and its prominent publication in Cuba, are welcome contributions to a discussion that will inevitably enrich the world revolutionary movement.

'Soclialism in one country' and the Cuban Revolution
by Celia Hart

"The fatherland is humanity." — Jose Marti

The means that have enabled the Cuban Revolution to survive after the surrender of European so-called socialism are shrouded in mystery. An outside observer might think that the socialist revolution undertaken 45 years ago in Cuba has no points of contact with the tragic events that led to the fall of the [Berlin] Wall in the now past century, that the socialism of the Cuban Revolution is the result of other mechanisms, that the heat and verve of the Caribbean have created different circumstances that explain its astounding vitality in the face of the U.S. economic blockade and the abrupt cutoff of its relations with Eastern Europe.

Or such an observer might think that it is the leadership of the Cuban Revolution that has guaranteed its survival. Or that it is from the perspective and historical traditions of Latin America, and from the highest ethical principles that the Cuban Revolution is able today to maintain its claim to be victorious.

By no means! The Cuban Revolution has maintained itself, among many reasons, by remaining faithful to the most consistent principles of Marxism-Leninism.

While the end of "socialism" in Europe represents the most important negative lesson for understanding the fight against Stalinism and the imposition of Socialism in One Country, the Cuban Revolution, even with its errors, is the positive lesson. To understand the Cuban revolution from the standpoint of its socialist character is important for the international communist movement, which faces a challenging struggle, now that all the Stalinist pseudo-theories such as Peaceful Coexistence, Socialist Realism, and Socialism in One Country have collapsed.

The Stalinist sophists have a last resort. They can, paradoxically, ally themselves with the reformists and, paraphrasing Fukiyama, proclaim the end of political parties and the end of models. This is a curious thing. They wrecked the parties by immobilizing them for action. And now they dismiss real parties, denouncing them as the rhetoric of the past.

It is not that parties serve no purpose. It is the "socialist practice" in Europe that made the parties useless. Parties will always be the mobilizing force of the struggle for human redemption. Although they may go by different names, as long as there is a group of persons who want to change the world and use political and ideological means to accomplish this, parties will continue to live.

It is rather like what the Spanish romantic poet of the 19th century, Bequer, wrote: "Maybe there won’t be poets, but there will always be poetry." They cannot deprive human beings of their desire to bond together.

But what will end is the Stalinist parties. This must be said in so many words.

The same goes for models. Models are a useful tool for simplifying the study of nature and society. The model of Socialism in One Country is experiencing the same fate as the Stalinist parties. It could not pass the test of history.

On the one side, you have the Cuban Revolution, defending the world’s causes from a socialist perspective despite its poverty. On the other, you have seven countries in Europe collapsing ignominiously into NATO. If it were snot tragic, it would be a wonder to see imperialism and reformism, the offspring of Stalinism, joining hands against a small country that today not only carries on its shoulders the struggle for a better world but by its very existence defends the bases of socialist theory.

This article will be divided into two parts. First, because I think that it is opportune to go back to Trotsky. Secondly, because I think that from its origins the Cuban Revolution rejected the model of Socialism in One country, and avoided falling into Stalinism from the start.

Why Trotsky?

Insofar as they have been applied in practice, Trotsky’s postulates have been confined to small groups of Trotskyists. They could not be fully implemented even in the distant decade of the 1960s, in which the emblematic figure of Che Guevara and his revolutionary instinct called for "waiting no longer than the time needed to oil your gun."

I don’t think that there is a more convincing practical application of the Permanent Revolution than the one that the great revolutionary and the hero of youth in the 20th century gave in abandoning his posts within Fidel’s triumphant revolution. Before that he was in Africa. It is more than evident that for Che real revolution and real socialism were not confined to the borders of my country or my continent.

This legendary banner, charged with romanticism and purity, was interpreted in many ways. It inspired Latin Americanism and anti-imperialism. And it did represent that, but as an aspect of the internationalism of the Cuban Revolution against bourgeois rule. To call it just that would be like calling Lenin and Trotsky "Europeanists," because they promoted the revolution in Europe.

Capitalism became imperialism. Latin America has become a stage for social struggles. Whether it was Che who said it or not.

In this regard, we have to be guided a bit more by the literature of facts.

But it is worthwhile remembering what Che said to Fidel in his farewell letter about fighting imperialism everywhere it exists. Che Guevara launched the era of Permanent Revolution in Latin America (in my opinion).

The background for this can be found in Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar. For them, the fatherland was all of Latin America. Jose Marti went a lot further. I will leave this for later.

The fall of the Berlin Wall caught us off base, as we say in Cuba, using a baseball analogy. Genuine Leninist militants were not listened to very much, at least in this part of the world. The dead bodies were not those of our people.

We do not have to shed a single tear for them, unless it is tears of happiness. Everything that Trotsky predicted in "The Revolution Betrayed" is well underway. If only the New York towers had not been toppled by a few incoherent fanatics and instead had suffered the fate of the Berlin Wall—that instead of airliners, it was the revolutionary thought of the Americas, including the United States, that had toppled the ideas of imperialism and colonialism. But I think we are still not too late.

Since Stalin’s apparent victory, which he gained by using the same sinister tricks as Goebbels, such as the big lie, murder, and terror, the revolutionary forces have had two enemies—imperialism and Stalinism. Getting comfortable with a victory, the real fact of having to build a socialist republic, can lead you to fall into the vice of Stalinism, without having to be familiar with Stalin. Above all for those who think of revolution as a job! With revolutionary ideas, as with love, you cannot make a profit off them. That would be prostitution. Those who have revolution in their bones and in their hearts rarely fall into Stalinism.

Fidel Castro has been president of Cuba for more than 40 years. He rarely takes off his guerrilla’s uniform. He has never made deals with the enemy, and his words resonate with internationalism. In the midst of his political crisis, Chavez [president of Venezuela] ceaselessly calls for Latin American and Caribbean unity. He and Fidel are genuinely internationalist leaders.

So, why Trotsky? In the first place because it is politically necessary. Yes sir! The old fighter’s experience is vital to save the new movements time and effort. No one is preaching that we should become fans of Trotsky. But he does need to be studied with the same care with which we read Gramsci and Mariategui. There is a veil of forgetfulness over him and I still don’t understand the reason for it. This veil can make it necessary for us to uncover what Trotsky did a little less than a century ago.

There is no need to say that no one can copy blindly. It is the spirit, the essence, that we must not throw overboard. Mercader’s terrible plot [Ramon Mercader assassinated Trotsky on Stalin’s orders in 1940 — the Editors] fortunately could not cut off all the lessons that this man wanted to leave us. I can still not sleep easily thinking that Mercader came to my country after the victory of the Cuban Revolution.

What seems absurd to me is that my Latin American and Cuban compañeros recognize the usefulness of liberation theology and not of Trotsky’s thought. They never say why. They just give me gentle pats on the back and sigh: "Drop it, dear, it’s passé."

Those that urge me to forget "passe" questions are the same who are trying (quite correctly) to revive even older thinkers, who, I would say, are not more necessary—Bolivar, Jose Marti, and even Christ. The only thing I can ask is that if religion took new paths and Liberation Theology has its origins in the emergence of Christianity, and therefore this theology is useful and revolutionary, then by the same token let us go back to the origins of socialism. It is the time of our rebirth. In this new dawn, Trotsky will be sitting expectantly at Lenin’s left hand.

The veil over this figure in the revolutionary movements can only be maintained by ignorance or by Stalinist tendencies. Stalinism, I repeat, is a dangerous evil that chokes victorious revolutionary bodies like scar tissue. It stifles inert bodies. We cannot lose a few centuries more because of puerile dogmas. We need all those who have told the truth to humanity.

And Trotsky is among them.

Not so much time has gone by since the "Communist Manifesto" and much less since the events of Stalin’s betrayal of the cause of the proletariat. All kinds of meetings are taking place. Lenin is not being mentioned in them. So let us open the door for a frank discussion among all revolutionaries who believe that Marxism remains one of the bases for saving the world. Let us not fall into the webs of Stalinism that were woven with lies, betrayals, and ignorance. Let our will for bettering the world protect us from that.

Fidel Castro has said more than once that we are not going to change the name of Karl Marx Theater or the Vladimir Ilich Lenin School. I continue to be convinced that a lot of compañeros are not reading between the lines.

In the most difficult moments of the revolution, when the legitimate heirs of Stalin decided to strike out Cuba with a stroke of the pen, when the imperialists bought suitcases for their return trip and my people were suffering the most atrocious poverty shaped by the effects of Stalinism and imperialism, Fidel raised his voice with determination and courage, shouting, "Socialism or Death." That day, the Cuban Revolution was saved. I see nothing that more resembles the final words of Marx’s and Engels’ "Manifesto."

II. The Cuban revolution, model of the socialist revolution

The Cuban Revolution that emerged in the 1960s is the only living socialist revolution in the West. It not only survived the collapse of European socialism, it remains young. It continues to uphold an all-out struggle against American imperialism, and it has been the spiritual guide for many generations and peoples.

Cuba is a poor and blockaded country (which were the pretexts Stalin used for imposing his model in the USSR.) Has it lived 45 years of socialism in one country? If that is so, is the theory valid? If it is not, why has the Cuban Revolution not fallen?

The answer is found in the following definitions.

It went by inadvertently: In referring to Cuba, we always say the Cuban Revolution and never Socialist Cuba. The USSR never let itself to be called the Soviet Revolution, except at the beginning when it was the Bolshevik Revolution, the world’s most beautiful revolution. This semantic difference is at the root of the real essence of the authenticity of my revolution and its right to continue its course. The USSR with all its missiles, its oil, and its economic development ceased to be a revolution and thereby condemned itself to death.

The cornerstones of a socialist revolution are its internationalist project and uncompromising social (class) struggle.

III. Internationalism in the formation of the Cuban nation.

In order to understand that link that exists between Cuba’s socialist revolution and internationalism, we come upon a happy paradox. Its universalist vocation and devotion to social justice have been the cornerstones of the formation of the Cuban nation.

Unlike a lot of countries, Cuba was formed as a nation in the crucible of immigration of Spanish and Black African immigrants. As the journalist Martha Rojas pointed out to me, on arriving in this land, the former lost their former identities (Galicians, Vizcayans, etc) calling themselves just Spaniards or maybe "Galicians."

The Blacks who were brought in ships likewise called themselves Blacks, also dropping their tribal or geographical origins. The emblematic Cuban writer, Alejo Carpentier, recipient of the Cervantes literary prize, declared, "We Cubans were born in ships."

In this way, the Cuban nation, although this may be masked by love for the fatherland, has roots in two other continents, along with the seasoning lent it by the American lands. In our origins, from early on, three continents became intermingled. From this bond emerged the underpinning of our identity, colored by an exceptional anti-imperialism.

From the beginnings of the epic struggle for independence, Antonio Maceo, military leader of the liberation wars against Spain, said enigmatically that the only way he might ever be seen fighting alongside the Spanish army would be if the United States tried to take Cuba. He intuitively foresaw who would be the real enemy in the long term, without turning to the study of sociopolitical treatises.

Maximo Gomez, the top military commander of the second liberation war in 1895, was not a Cuban but a Dominican. He was respected and accepted without having to present a passport even once.

However, Cuba’s internationalist character had no better sense of worldwide projection than that represented by Jose Marti. The world’s revolutionaries still need to study carefully this man’s work if we really want to understand the still controversial transition from the 19th to the 20th century.

It was not in fact Lenin or Trotsky who declared in 1895: "Every day I am offering my life for my country and for my duty to see that the independence of Cuba prevents the United States from expanding through the West Indies and then falling with the greater force that it can gain from this on our Latin American lands." That was Jose Marti. His duty transcended the independence of our island.

Days before saying that, he avowed: "But now I can serve this single heart of our republics. The Free West Indies will save the independence of Latin America, as well as the already dubious and damaged honor of North America, and maybe they will accelerate and consolidate an equilibrium in the world…."

Speaking to a Dominican friend who asked him to talk about Santo Domingo, he said: "Why do I have to talk to you about Santo Domingo? Is it any different from Cuba? Aren’t you a Cuban? And what am I? What soil defines me? Jose Marti made the internationalist ideal the ultimate goal of Cuba’s independence. He had an opportunity to get to know the United States from close up. And in his poetic and elevated language, he described the emergent imperialism better than any other living being (in my opinion).

For this reason, the second stage of the struggle, going through the revolution in the 1930s, in which along with fighting the tyrant Machado the young people thought that the Spanish republic was another front, was rooted in internationalist ideas.

When the government of the time did not permit a ship belonging to the young Soviet Republic to land, Julio Antonio Mella, who Fidel was to say was the Cuban who did the most in the least time and who was the founder of the first [Cuban] Communist Party, took a boat and as a representative of the Cuban people, reached the ship and fraternized with all its crew.

Of course, they [Stalinists] expelled this young man from the party he founded—when it could still speak in the name of the International. He was assassinated in Mexico. As he died, he did not murmur any nationalist slogan but passed into immortality, saying, "I am dying for the revolution." Fidel’s revolution also followed an internationalist road. In a letter written to Celia Sanchez in 1958, Fidel avowed: "When this war ends, my other longer and bigger war will begin, the war that I am going to wage against them (the Yankees). I realize that that is going to determine my real destiny." After 45 years, we can see with admiration that he has kept his word.

And of course, we have to consider the image of Che, the classic symbol of real internationalism. Che left his family, his responsibilities, his honors, all to fight on other lands that "called for the help of my modest efforts."

I know a very close friend of Che was telling him about how incredible it was that the Mambi troops accepted Maximo Gomez, a Dominican, as their chief of staff. This compañero recalled that Che looked at him with a half smile.

It was only then that he realized he was talking to an Argentinian. Che did not have the same luck in Bolivia. On the other hand, I do not know if there has ever been a better example of the strict application of the Permanent Revolution. These are only some examples.

Social justice: The other cornerstone of the Cuban nation Our war of independence was belated with respect to other Latin American nations. However, this enabled its leaders to learn from the experiences of the European revolutions and to put forward very advanced and very radical ideas for what was supposedly only a war for the independence of Cuba.

Unlike what happened in the United States in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, when the goal of abolishing slavery was put aside, which would cost this country another war in the following century, the uprising for Cuban independence was proclaimed jointly with the abolition of slavery.

These were two arms of one body, one could not be thought of without the other. In fact, the rancher Carlos Manuel de Cespedes freed his slaves and appealed to them as equals to fight for freedom.

When, after 10 years of struggle, the Spanish managed to get the Cubans to sign the so-called Treaty of Zanjoin, Antonio Maceo told the Spanish officer who was trying to be him to accept this surrender that since this treaty did not include the abolition of slavery the fight would continue. At the end of this meeting, Martinez Campos said, "Then we don’t understand each other." Maceo responded, "No, we do not."

In 1892, Jose Marti founded the Cuban Revolutionary Party. He insisted that the contributions to politics and universal philosophy that he left us were an introduction to our trying to understand the course of history. The bases of this party from the beginning transcended the mere independence of the island. Its projection and its internal consistency put this party in the category of a party of a new type. Its fundamental base of support was the working class (exiled tobacco workers).

It was founded before Lenin’s party. The concrete differences between Europe and the Americas will lead the superficial reader to see incompatible points [between the two parties]. For the careful and patient reader absolute and common truths will emerge. From this revolutionary party, 30 years later, the Communist Party of Cuba was born. Carlos Balino was a founder of both, knowing that they were the same thing.

We need not talk about the dedication to social justice of the revolution that Fidel Castro is carrying forward. But one more detail that needs to be analyzed more deeply is his manifesto "History Will Absolve Me." This document recapitulates Fidel’s defense after the [1953] attack on the Moncada Barracks.

I still don’t understand how the imperialists could have failed to read this as a genuine communist document. It emphasizes the social problems and offers a class profile of the Cuban people that leaves nothing else to be said by the most orthodox socialist in any part of the world.

This document was written 50 years ago, and it retains its freshness and follows the strictest logical order. Six years later, against all predictions, a revolution triumphed under the very nose of imperialism that united in its spirit social justice and internationalism.

Final notes

In his farewell letter to Fidel, Che first of all pointed out that the most sacred of duties was to fight imperialism where it showed itself. Imperialism is very close to us. For this reason, by existing, Cuba offers the best contribution to the cause of world socialism.

It should be understood that I by no means think that the Cuban Revolution is inherently immortal. I even think we have committed serious errors. Of course, in 1986 Fidel declared a "Rectification of Errors and Negative Tendencies." He pointed to bureaucracy and other evils, and pushed the society to undertake new efforts. This was before Gorbachev’s cheap talk about perestroika and glasnost. You have to see where these things came from. It would be amusing to analyze from whom they were inherited.

As the dialectic teaches us, in the unity and conflict of counterrevolution grows in the shows, waiting for the first missteps of the revolutionaries. I doubt if there is any country that has an exile community as hostile as ours. Our only solution is to be continually more radical, more consistent in our understanding of the role played by internationalism and social justice.

Any attempt at compromise with imperialism (and by this I do not include the noble American people with whom we have to develop more and more relations) will be a step backward on our road. Because the revolution has no end, as an old and forgotten comrade of ours pointed out, the revolution is permanent.

In this worldwide scenario an unprecedented revolutionary situation is emerging. The Bolivarian revolution is precisely a revolution. Chavez never ceases talking about Latin American unity. Chavez’s revolution can maintain itself as long as it does not make any deals with the enemy, as long as it continues to radicalize.

Trotsky also dreamed of this unity when he was in Mexico. It is a shame that Stalin did not allow him to live. But no matter. His spirit (even if there still are deep-seated prejudices against him) is in the revolutions that will emerge sooner or later. We will see to it that he emerges from his silence and that he will be seen without being considered a terrorist.

It is a curious thing that both the imperialists and the Stalinists coincide in calling him a terrorist. That is a point in our favor.

The advantage that Cuba can have is that at its core are two major bastions for repelling Socialism in One Country. Fidel is not a biological accident.

Fidel, like Marti, is the product of all the elements that have shaped us as a nation.

The Cuban Revolution can be lasting, as long as it continues to be a revolution, projecting itself through the world and living for the world and for the dispossessed. It will die out hopelessly the day it decides to stop and tries to convert itself into a static republic.

Workers of the World Unite!

This article first appeared in the July 2004 issue of Socialist Action newspaper.

 

Subscribe to our weekly Resistance! ezine - which features an activist calendar, a compilation of current events as well as statements and analysis of national and international events from a Marxist perspective.

Socialist Action: 298 Valencia St., San Francisco CA 94103 (415) 255-1080 -- socialistact@igc.org

Youth 4 Socialist Action: P.O. Box 16853, Duluth MN 55816 (715) 394-6660 -- mnsocialist@yahoo.com