Introduction
It has come to our attention that our comrades in the American Party of Labor have begun to adopt certain tendencies antithetical to the line of anti-revisionism. These are, in the main, (1) appraisal of the Cuban “revolution” as socialist in nature, (2) regarding the Republic of Cuba as “anti-imperialist” in spite of its role in Soviet social-imperialism and (3) regarding Che Guevara as a figure who “enriched” Marxism-Leninism and placing him at the same status as Enver Hoxha of socialist Albania.
Let us be clear – the American Party of Labor is the closest political party there is in the United States to a vanguard party. In their current position, they stand at the helm of many working class struggles and have, for the most part, opposed revisionism and opportunism besides this error.
We recognize the American Party of Labor as comrades in the revolutionary struggle. In publishing this statement we do not condone, nor want, any one or group to use this article as a source to attack or vilify the American Party of Labor, whom we are generally supportive of, and consider to be comrades. Rather our intent is to help bring attention to issues in the Party to help further its goals of socialist revolution.
With these points clarified, let us direct our attention to the Party’s errors.
Section One: Cuba as a “Socialist” State
“We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists.” – Enver Hoxha, The Fist of The Marxist-Leninst Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, The Offspring of Modern Revisionism [Emphasis added]
On May 21, 2026, The American Party of Labor’s newspaper arm
The Red Phoenix published an article titled
“Revolutionary Government of Cuba condemns in the strongest terms the despicable accusation by The U.S.” unto which they publish without comment the statement made by the government of the Republic of Cuba, which includes the final statement of: “The Cuban people reaffirm their unwavering decision to defend the Homeland and its Socialist Revolution and, with the greatest strength and firmness, their unrestricted and unchanging support for Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, Leader of the Cuban Revolution.” Further, The Red Phoenix has
republished an article by Michael Parenti which claims that Cuba has a socialist economy.
This is where we begin our first criticism. It is all well and good to publish the statement of a foreign government, but as anti-revisionists, it should be our duty to critique any claims that are made within this statement, such as any claim of being socialist, and the American Party of Labour proclaims itself to be an anti-revisionist party which follows the line of Enver Hoxha, but has published the claim of a proveably revisionist state without any acknowledgment that Cuba is not socialist despite its claims. In what way is Cuba revisionist? We refer back to our earlier article titled
“The Question of Present-Day ‘Actually-Existing-Socialism’”.
Section Two: Cuba as an “Anti-Imperialist” State
The American Party of Labor has characterized Cuba as an “anti-imperialist” state, or at least one which has historically fulfilled that role. In an article by The Red Phoenix titled
“Cuba charged impressment of Cuban citizens to serve in Russian military”, the APL states that Cuba upholds “socialist principles”. To insinuate such a thing is to insinuate that socialism can be built upon revisionist foundations, an idea Hoxha thoroughly rejects while criticizing the Titoite and Soviet revisionists in his writing “The Demagogy of the Soviet Revisionists…” Saying, “
What is this socialism which is allegedly being built in Yugoslavia on the basis of revisionist ideology, which is nothing else but a variant of the bourgeois ideology? Does the Soviet leadership itself not admit by this that socialism can
allegedly be built also on the basis of revisionism, that is of anti-Marxism, of bourgeois ideology?”. Furthermore, it asserts the following:
“Cuba has unequivocally stated that it plays no part in the war in Ukraine and rejects the use of its citizens as mercenaries. This assertion must be taken seriously, as Cuba has consistently been a beacon of anti-imperialist resistance and a proponent of peace and self-determination for all nations.” [Emphasis added]
This position stands in contradiction to factual reality. The Republic of Cuba since 1959 has consistently sided with Soviet social-imperialism, and this has manifested in various ways. The Cuban government actively sent tens of thousands of troops to intervene on behalf of Soviet proxies and puppets in Angola and Ethiopia. More importantly, Cuba itself was largely reduced into a sugar colony of the Soviet Union and its economy was made utterly dependent on Soviet backing – a fact which hit them hard when the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and the “Special Period” began. Cuba has since sided with Chinese social-imperialism, with Castro even
praising Xi himself. Additionally, the Cuban government has also established
close ties with the imperialist Russian Federation.
Lastly in this section, it has come to our attention that a prominent Party member has,
on social media, stated that criticism cannot be levied against the Cuban government due to it being targeted by United States imperialism. We are hesitant to use social media as a source, but since the APL has refused to provide us with an official statement clarifying their positions, we are forced to use this as a source. This lack of clarity is a major driver behind this article, since we cannot find a clear declaration from the Party stating that Cuba is not socialist, and many statements that insinuate the opposite, we feel compelled to make these criticisms.
Criticism is not optional, and “ruthless criticism of all that exists” (Marx) must not be disregarded simply because this or that government is under threat from imperialism. Even the neo-Brezhnevites uphold the principle of “critical support”, even half-heartedly. We can be supportive of the Cuban people while acknowledging that it is under a bourgeois government. The fact that the Republic of Cuba is under threat from imperialism does not make them any more socialist. It is one thing to refrain from criticism of a government because it is under imperialist blockade, it is another to disregard theory, accept their propaganda, and elevate them to the level of a socialist state. You have correctly refrained from doing so in the case of Venezuela, and so we hope you can do so with Cuba.
Section Three: Che the “Enricher”
The American Party of Labor has the following on its
online history section:
“Our Party is based on scientific socialism as formulated by the classics of Marxism; Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin, and enriched by figures such as Enver Hoxha, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and Kwame Nkrumah, as well as countless other revolutionaries that have dedicated their lives to the defeat of capitalism and imperialism and the advancement of socialism.” [Italics added]
Furthermore, on the Party’s defunct journal Revolutionary Spirit, it
states the following:
“As for Che Guevara himself, it is the opinion of the APL that unlike Castro, Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist who merely made mistakes, particularly his theory of foco.” [Emphasis added]
As far as we can determine, this is the Party’s current stance. This is incorrect, for as Hoxha said in
The Fist of The Marxist-Leninst Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, The Offspring of Modern Revisionism:
“Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.” [Emphasis added]
Che was not a Marxist-Leninist and, further, should not be placed (implicitly or explicitly) on the same level as Enver Hoxha, who waged a profound anti-revisionist struggle and helped advance Marxism-Leninism to a new stage (see our article
Hoxha: The Fifth Head?).
We suggest the following wording in the “Our History” page:
“...ideologically and practically enhanced by Enver Hoxha and Ho Chi Minh and tactically enhanced by John Brown, Bill Bland, and Kwame Nkrumah…”
Although we regard Hoxha as the fifth classical theorist of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, we do not regard this as a major point of contention and will respect our differences over this status.
Conclusion
We reiterate that the purpose of this article is not to denounce the American Party of Labor as “revisionist,” “Castroite,” etc. but to help bring to their attention certain defects in their ideological line which may mislead working class people. This is important because the American Party of Labor is in the unique position to become the vanguard party of the Statesian proletariat, and therefore must have a firm line against revisionism.
Further, we ask that the comrades at the American Party of Labor also clarify their positions on other questions like the Dimitrovian “popular front” and settler-colonialism.
We hope to be in further contact with the American Party of Labor.
Workers of the World, Unite!
Contact: [email protected]
