What is the Argentinian claim to the Falklands?

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 18 2011 01:38
What is the Argentinian claim to the Falklands?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riQpO3x5LEw&feature=player_embedded

The question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is in the news again. Kirchener levied some personal attacks at Cameron's government and called Britain a fading colonial power. The position of the left, as far as it exists, seems to be that the "Malvinas" is a colonial outpost, and an occupied Argentinean territory; a remnant from the British Empire. The US has begun to take a similar view, and now refers to the Island as The Malvinas at OAS conferences.

Now, my knowledge of The Falkland's history isn't good, but it's my understanding that the Island's were desolate when the Europeans arrived in the sixteenth century, and were settled by various European powers. The only time the Islands were under Argentinean control was after the invasion of 1982, when the fascist junta and American client made a last desperate effort to engender public sympathy to their regime. The islands were offered independence during the UN decolonization proceedings and refused. During the 1980s they were given all but executive powers over their affairs.

After democracy was established in Argentina the issue of Falklands sovereignty was raised dutifully each time the UN Special Committee on Decolonization met, as a sort of token gesture. Emotive debate was only resurrected recently after the possible discovery of oil.

The last time this subject was raised the left was almost unanimously on the side of the Argentineans. What's the argument?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 18 2011 03:59
Quote:
The last time this subject was raised the left was almost unanimously on the side of the Argentineans. What's the argument?

Best argument I read were a couple of pieces of graffiti in Barcelona at the time of the war. The leftist one read, "Victory to Argentine! Down with Britain!". Underneath was the argument against it: "Which Argentine? Which Britain?"
(all written in Spanish).

Michael "the unacceptable Foot of capitalism" initially played the anti-fascist demagogue and supported Thatcher's war, whereas the idiots of the Revolutionary Communist Party (neither revolutionary nor communist, but certainly a political party) supported the fascist regime of Galtieri. The real point of the war was lost on these leftists: it was a war against the working class of both countries. If it had been Argentine squatters going onto the Falklands and camping there, I'd guess both Thatcher and the Argentinian State would have colluded to evict them, but it was clearly a phoney pre-planned (at least on the part of Thatcher) clash of the 2 bourgeoisies to reinforce their power against internal threats by riots and strikes.

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 18 2011 04:15

Regardless of the motives, Britain clearly had a right in 1982 to defend it's territory.

And its implausible that Galtieri planned for a war against Britain. The predictable defeat brought down his government.

My understanding was that the invasion was predicated by the assumption that Britain wouldn't mobilize the enormous fleet necessary to recapture the scarcely populated ex-colony.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 18 2011 07:18
Quote:
Regardless of the motives, Britain clearly had a right in 1982 to defend it's territory.

Your utterly conventionally colonised complacent comment is effectively a support for the Nation and for bourgeois property rights. Fuck Britain, and fuck its bourgeois right to "its" territory. The penguins had more right to it than "Britain" (I mean, you support this entity called "Britain", created by the hierarchical violence of the ruling class or what?). 6 Falkland islanders were killed by - guess whom - "friendly" fire - ie by the British army. And when i said it was pre-planned, I meant by Thatcher & co.

In the UK in 1982 when another summer of riots, this time combined with rail strikes and nurses' strikes, was anticipated, the Argentinian ruling class (who had their own accelerating class struggle) were encouraged to invade the Falklands Islands by the withdrawal of the British battleship Sir Galahad, which had been protecting the islands and which had been moved there previously by Callaghan when the Argentinians had threatened to invade in the late 70s. This was Thatcher's chance to reverse her fortunes (she had the lowest support in the opinion polls ever up to that point, iirc). The war started on Friday, 2 April 1982, with the Argentine invasion and occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. On Saturday 3rd April the House of Commons met to authorise the use of troops and battleships etc, with Michael Foot getting into anti-fascist mode to support Thatcher. But at the end of the debate amidst uproar John Nott, Minister of Defence, gave the game away, "If we were unprepared, how is it that from next Monday, at only a few days' notice, the Royal Navy will put to sea in wartime order and with wartime stocks and weapons...preparations have been in progress for several weeks" (see Hansard, 3rd April 1982). Thatcher, a year later, won a landslide partly on the backs of defeating "the enemy without" as part of her plan to defeat "the enemy within".

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jun 18 2011 08:51

yeah man the war in 1982 had more to do with populist One Britannia militaristic ideology at home than it did sovereignty abroad.

I largely agree with kirchener's depiction of britain as a crusty old ex-imperial power that can't let go. But I do wonder, why does Argentina want the Malvinas? All the people on their to my knowledge (which is restricted and I am happy to be corrected here), are English speaking and consider themselves British. There is little in the way of natural resources there either. Why go through all the hassle of trying to get the islands back?

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 18 2011 09:24

In my A-level course there was an argentinian bloke (it was a college course, so he wasn't just some kid), and when we covered the Falklands war, he explained it was Galtieri attempting to boost his popularity at home, so he did totally plan it. (just the way that Thatcher did over here). He expected Britain to back off as they had been doing consistently from previous parts of the British empire (eg. Kenya, Malaya etc), so i wouldn't say it was a predictable defeat.

Samotnaf's analysis is therefore spot on in my opinion, i even agree with his superfluous rhetoric.

Gerostock wrote:
My understanding was that the invasion was predicated by the assumption that Britain wouldn't mobilize the enormous fleet necessary to recapture the scarcely populated ex-colony.

yes, i think this is clear, but i don't think it supports the view that Galtieri didn't plan the war? He didn't expect the scale of it, but neither did Hitler when he invaded Poland.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 18 2011 09:25

If I remember rightly assembling the task force was pretty ad hoc (didn't they have to pull a carrier out of mothballs that was due to be scrapped?).
I'd agree that Galtieri did it to boost his popularity and either failed to realise or simply didn't believe that Thatcher was willing and able to do the same. The Falklands were strategically important for trade routes, but that is not so important now as Britain no longer has the navy to police them, nor the share of trade.
There is a possibility of deep sea oil in the territory although the amount of territory that Argentina loses sovereignty over is relatively small, whereas Britain obviously gains sovereignty over huge swathes of ocean.
I believe the SWP supported Argentina on the grounds of anti-imperialism, although I remember a thread on here where one of the posters told us that archive copies of the relevant copies of their magazine in uni libraries had been defaced/stolen. Probably by SWP themselves.

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Jun 18 2011 11:53

When it happened there was regular talk of oil reserves in the South Atlantic that were expected to be exploited (and I believe are), as well as it being a prime fishing ground (since most in the northern hemisphere were already destroyed by then). So as well as nationalist bullshit there was a resource element. The nationalist element was fairly noxious at the time, and had clear class resonances. There was a rail strike when the fleet came back into Portsmouth and there were squaddies displaying anti-strike banners. ALl of which was boosted by the press. (Hardly even needs the "right wing" adjective anymore).

There were even people volunteering or calling for conscription, such was the nationalist rhetoric, and popular mood, again connected to the fact that there were people who were demonstrably British under occupation by a fascist regime. SWP were in favour of the Argentineans, IIRC Militant took the British side. At the time I never came across an internationalist view, but I was young and lived somewhere that the left didn't exist.

Argentina's claim is as imperialist as Britain's, based as it is on the legacy of the Spanish empire and the actions of privateers. The people who live there have no desire to live under Argentinean rule. I don't think they are all of British extraction, there are some Chileans there as well to do the shit jobs I think.

Regards,

Martin

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 18 2011 14:59
Samotnaf wrote:
Quote:
Regardless of the motives, Britain clearly had a right in 1982 to defend it's territory.

Your utterly conventionally colonised complacent comment is effectively a support for the Nation and for bourgeois property rights. Fuck Britain, and fuck its bourgeois right to "its" territory. The penguins had more right to it than "Britain" (I mean, you support this entity called "Britain", created by the hierarchical violence of the ruling class or what?). 6 Falkland islanders were killed by - guess whom - "friendly" fire - ie by the British army. And when i said it was pre-planned, I meant by Thatcher & co.

So the British government wouldn't have had a right to defend it's territory if, say, Franco had invaded the Isle of Wight in 1975?

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jun 18 2011 15:08

That is a really tenuous comparison man...

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 18 2011 15:19
Gerostock wrote:
So the British government wouldn't have had a right to defend it's territory if, say, Franco had invaded the Isle of Wight in 1975?

by saying that they have the 'right', you imply agreement with the idea that Britain's national ruling class, can go send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise. Essentially taking sides in a bourgeoisie vs bourgeoisie war. definitely requires very careful consideration before blindly supporting Britain's 'right'.

As communists we reject bourgeois wars in favour of internationalism...

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 18 2011 15:44
Arbeiten wrote:
That is a really tenuous comparison man...

Why? They're both British island territories that are in closer proximity to other nations. They're both populated by people who want, probably in comparable numbers, to remain a part of Britain.

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 18 2011 15:39
Harrison Myers wrote:
Gerostock wrote:
So the British government wouldn't have had a right to defend it's territory if, say, Franco had invaded the Isle of Wight in 1975?

by saying that they have the 'right', you imply agreement with the idea that Britain's national ruling class, can go send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise. Essentially taking sides in a bourgeoisie vs bourgeoisie war. definitely requires very careful consideration before blindly supporting Britain's 'right'.

As communists we reject bourgeois wars in favour of internationalism...

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point... Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States"
George Orwell

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jun 18 2011 15:46
Gerostock wrote:
Harrison Myers wrote:
Gerostock wrote:
So the British government wouldn't have had a right to defend it's territory if, say, Franco had invaded the Isle of Wight in 1975?

by saying that they have the 'right', you imply agreement with the idea that Britain's national ruling class, can go send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise. Essentially taking sides in a bourgeoisie vs bourgeoisie war. definitely requires very careful consideration before blindly supporting Britain's 'right'.

As communists we reject bourgeois wars in favour of internationalism...

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point... Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States"
George Orwell

Harrison is not arguing for pacifism. I can't decide if you're tolling or not, but there's little that can be added to his or the other responses on this thread.

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Jun 18 2011 15:57

jef costello:

Quote:
I believe the SWP supported Argentina on the grounds of anti-imperialism

martinh:

Quote:
SWP were in favour of the Argentineans

I'm not sure if this is correct, though it fits their usual line (Iraq, Iran 1987-88...). If they took a similar position on th Falklands (I wasn't in their political neighbourhood yet, so I cannot say), they shifted their line afterwards. When I was entering IS tendency in the Netherlands, in 1988 (don't worry comrades, I left in 2008 tongue...), there was a strong debate why you should defend Iran against Iraq (because Iraq and US imperialism ware on the same side, so Iran defended itself 'against imperialism...' ) In that debate, the DIFFERENCE between the Iran situation and the Falkland situation was stressed IIRC. The latter situation was not considered to be one whe you should have supported Argentine.

In 1991, there was an article by SWP intellectual Alex Callinicos, on imperialism, in their theoretical magazine, International Socialism Journal (ISJ 50, 1991, I cannot find it online). Here, he quotes two Arnentine marxists, Dabat and Lorenano. These two argued strongly AGAINST the idea of left wing support for Argentine against Britain. They quote them:

Quote:
There was not a progressive and a reactionary camp... One reactionary side as bent on extending its influence, while the other was concerned to retain the last wisps of its former empire and to establish a pecking order among thenational components of the capitalist bloc

. Calinicos approves, and talks of their

Quote:
broadly correct analysis of the Falkland War

. So that would come down on a plague-on-both-houses position, in this particular case, and not on an anarchist/ communist basis of rejection of all capitlist wars as such. Still, it is NOT the usual siding with one power aginst the other for 'anti-imperialist' reasons.

I tried to find out what they actually said in 1982, and I found, through this link, a graphic of a Socialist reviw (their monthly magazine) article (you follow the link, go to the alphabetic index, check under 'Falklands'). Tiltle: "The enemy is at home". It gives some history, it mentions both the British AND the Argentine reasons for war. For example: "

Quote:
Onlly a few days before the seizure of the Falklands, Buenos Aires saw the first mass demonstrations against against military rule since 1976. No wonder the junta has decided to recovr some support by an appeal to pariotism.

The article ends, not with an explicit defence of Argentine, but with a vague preference for a British defeat. There is no equal rejection of both sides, but neither is there a 'defend Argentine against imperialism' rhetoric. They manage to straddle in between a rejection of both sides and a taking of sides on behalf of Argentine! Still, it could have been worse (and often has been). And there is no need to blame them for mistakes they did not actually make.

Gerostock's picture
Gerostock
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Jun 18 2011 15:58
jef costello wrote:
Gerostock wrote:
Harrison Myers wrote:
Gerostock wrote:
So the British government wouldn't have had a right to defend it's territory if, say, Franco had invaded the Isle of Wight in 1975?

by saying that they have the 'right', you imply agreement with the idea that Britain's national ruling class, can go send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise. Essentially taking sides in a bourgeoisie vs bourgeoisie war. definitely requires very careful consideration before blindly supporting Britain's 'right'.

As communists we reject bourgeois wars in favour of internationalism...

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point... Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States"
George Orwell

Harrison is not arguing for pacifism. I can't decide if you're tolling or not, but there's little that can be added to his or the other responses on this thread.

Harrison implied that he doesn't believe Britain has a right to "send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise". Ergo, they don't have the right to send the army to fight to defend national territory. Ergo, Harrison is a pacifist, at least within the current economic order.

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Jun 18 2011 16:04

Gerostock:

Quote:
Harrison implied that he doesn't believe Britain has a right to "send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise". Ergo, they don't have the right to send the army to fight to defend national territory. Ergo, Harrison is a pacifist, at least within the current economic order.

No. Rejection of a ruling class' right to wage wars and send workers to fight for capitalist power and profits is NOT pacifism. It is NOT about an abstract rejection of the use of arms: the use of arms of workers against capitalist power is entirely justified, but would fill a pacifist witrh horror... No war but the class war is NOT a pacifist, but a revolutionary, slogan, entirely appropriatre for this debate.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jun 18 2011 16:10

Why is it tenuous? jeez man, do I really have to do this? Simply at the level of brutal militaristic geo-politics, the Isle of White is 2 miles off the coast of mainland Britain, while the Falkland/Malvinas are roughly 8000 miles away. A Franco invasion of the Isle of White would be an obvious move to create a military base in which to strike mainland Britain. This would be a direct declaration of war, a sizeable and cataclysmic threat of war that just wasn't there during the F/M occupation. The occupation of the F/M was a dispute over abstract national sovereignty vs. abstract imperial sovereignty. To my mind neither of them are particularly fruitful reasons to have nearly a thousand peopled killed over.

and that George Orwell quote could have come straight from the mouth of Cameron or Thatcher. It's the same jingo-ism that has justified interventions all across the world post WW2, and I don't know if you have noticed this, but it has actually left a trail of dead, the propping up of western backed dictators (what in the Orwell quote is referred to as totalitarianism), no signs of the global ascendancy of 'western democracy' and the curtailment of civil liberties in the so called 'west'. This blackmail that demands we either pick our western democracy or their totalitarianism is infuriating in its simplicity and dualistic conception of the world. In any case I would argue that the Orwell quote is actually a miss-quote given the context. The occupation of F/M islands is nothing like Nazi Germany in Europe in 1940s, and don't ask me why I have said that or my head will literally pop off.

The plasticity with which the memory of Orwell and his words have is something we should all be wary of.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jun 18 2011 16:10

edit: double post

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Jun 18 2011 16:32

There was a moment on Question Time th other night where the right wing ex Trot writer Christopher Hitchens was on the panel. An earnest young man was talking about Libya and mentioned about committing ground troops. Quick as a flash, Hitchens said "You're the right age, off you go then!" The look on the earnest one's face was priceless.

All wars are about something abstract, they all have claims to be doing something noble (saving Libyan women from rape, saving the plucky Belgians, stopping the extermination of the Jews, helping the poor Falkland islanders suffering under fascist occupation etc). When it comes down to it, these are at best smokescreens or useful byproducts. What they are really about is hard material things, like control of resources or shoring up the state by nationalism. They are always a gamble for any ruling class, but, for the last 100 years or so, it's never them dying. The first world war was the last one where members of the ruling classes ended up dying in similar proportion to the rest of us.

The reality of war is that sometimes it is unavoidable for our rulers, who must keep on increasing their market share. We may not be able to do anything about it. But we certainly shuldn't like it or give any succour to the forces that promote it.

Re the SWP, I may be wrong. I heard this second hand from people who were around at the time. They also have enough form with their revolutionary defeatism, a concept I found disturbing when I first heard it and still do. I knew people who left the SWP over many of the wars where they have taken sides, especially the first gulf war, where their analysis as defended by their members I encountered was to support one side cos the other started it.

Revolutionary defeatism is the doctrine originating with Lenin that says you must always support your nation's enemy as it furthers a revolutionary situation. Whether this was before or after he got massive support from the Kaiser I don't know. It always stuck me as odd that the logic of this argument is that socialists in the UK in 1982 should support the Galtieri junta and socialists in Argentina should be hoping for a Thatcher victory.

rooieravotr
Offline
Joined: 28-10-09
Jun 18 2011 16:56

Concerning the taking-of-sides of the SWP: yes, they usually do, and yes, it is wrong in general and on principle. Though

Quote:
to support one side cos the other started it.

is not accurate: the SWP argument is not 'who started it' but who is the big imperialist power (the main enemy) and who is the weak powers whose victory, in their view, would weaken imperialism. It is an argument i have come to regard as quite silly: imperialism is not a matter of size, of strength, and within a n imerialist world system, EVERY capitalist state is imperialist. But it is different from 'let's oppose the ones who started it'.

And, for some reason or another, the SWP saw a difference between the Forst Gulf war (in which they took sides) and the Falklands war (in which they evaded the question with rather vague phrases, as I tried to show.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jun 18 2011 16:58
Gerostock wrote:
Harrison implied that he doesn't believe Britain has a right to "send a portion of their working class to go die in order to maintain the rule of Britain's national bourgeoise". Ergo, they don't have the right to send the army to fight to defend national territory. Ergo, Harrison is a pacifist, at least within the current economic order.

Yeah, while the first sentence seems to flow into the second one (though to be honest, your second and third ones just don't at all), it's all thrown off by the fact that no one, except you, is talking about the 'right' of this or that nation to do stuff. Harrison is talking about whether we should support it and, correctly in my opinion, concluding no. I reckon a decent chunk of those British soldiers who committed suicide following the British government exercising their 'right to defend national territory' (more than actually died in the fighting) might have agreed with that as well..

Talking about 'rights' with nations is daft as fuck anyway.. did the UK/US have the right to invade Iraq in 2003? Not really no, but they did.. it's about as pointless as watching a head on car crash and saying "you shouldn't have done that"..

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 18 2011 18:34

i think pretty much everything has been covered by others in explaining my post. On top of what Ed said, nations are not homogeneous entities, but the rule of particular fraction of the international bourgeoisie over a portion of the international working class.

The real question is whether it was of interest to the international working class for the two bourgeois fractions to go to war, using them as troops.

For the record, i am not a pacifist, and certainly have no moral issue with using violence against capitalists.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 18 2011 19:22

Gerostock:

Quote:
So the British government wouldn't have had a right to defend it's territory if, say, Franco had invaded the Isle of Wight in 1975?

You've converted me.
I think that if a Spanish fishing trawler (lets call it The Belgrano) moving outside and away from the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the Isle of Wight were to have been sunk with 323 deaths I - and you too - would have been proud to declare "Gotcha!". I mean territory is territory is terror-tory, and abstractions about the rulers' rights take precedence over any independent thought or emotion. Long live death! Long live Thatcher! ( I sincerely hope she survives for another 1000 seconds). Anyone who disagrees is a pacifist wooss[/heavy sarcasm].

I mean, wake up! Question all these false choices, these "reasonable" pretensions to "reasonableness" that are just the pretensions of this fundamentally unreasonable irrational society. Fucking question yourself. And all that stuck in your "I refuse to be influenced" head crap, and stop quoting Orwell (as if it was gospel) from 70 years ago in, as Arbeiten said, a totally different situation (he was wrong, but at least I can understand and empathise with a point of view that arose from a situation when the class war had been effectively defeated for a generation, which was certainly not the case in 1982).

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Jun 18 2011 23:29
Quote:
Revolutionary defeatism is the doctrine originating with Lenin that says you must always support your nation's enemy as it furthers a revolutionary situation.

That is a total misunderstanding of revolutionary defeatism. Turning the imperialist war into a civil war does not imply victory for the other imperialist power over your home nation-state, as the example of the Russian Revolution demonstrates. Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't support a warring state against their nation of residence for the purpose of promoting revolution.

Aflwydd
Offline
Joined: 22-05-11
Jun 19 2011 00:22

Two leaders who wanted to drum up jingoist sentiment decided to play God with a few thousand troops. That's all there is to it.

Mentioning Britain's 'right' to defend its territory misses the point. By such logic, Britain was 'right' in their wars against Ireland and South Africa, and in their repression of the Kenyan and Indian people. Yes, internal uprisings are different from outside invasions, but all Britain was doing in these situations was defending its territory.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 19 2011 04:33
Quote:
The penguins had more right to it than "Britain"

The Malvinas/Falklands penguins give the definitive reply to Galtieri's and Thatcher's claims on the islands.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jun 19 2011 11:32

Gerostock, do you consider yourself to be some sort of anarchist or libertarian communist?

If so, the idea of supporting a nation's "right" to do anything is incompatible with these ideas. Particularly supporting one national ruling class's "right" to send their workers to kill and be killed by their fellow workers of another nationality.

Pacifism means opposition to all violence. You can oppose capitalist wars without being a pacifist, if you are not opposed to working class violence against their own ruling class, which would be the view of most of us on here.

By the way, the Socialist Party (then Militant) supported Britain during the war:
http://libcom.org/library/militant-falklands-war-1982

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jun 19 2011 11:45

Agree with the clarification of Devoration above in general. But "revolutionary defeatism" has long been recuperated by the left.

Lenin originally used the term in WWI against the "centrists" and their sophisticated and slippery argument that they were opposed to imperialist war in principle but the class had to wait until the "enemy" workers involved in hostilities was ready to join the class struggle. Against this Lenin proposed "revolutionary defeatism" which, as Dev says above, meant "turn the imperialist war into a civil war". Lenin during this period was clearly against any version of national defence, against any version of common ground with the bourgeoisie and on a firm internationalist terrain. But "revolutionary defeatism" has long been used to justify support for this or that imperialism.

The Falklands War was a war manufactured and aimed directly against the working class and rising class struggle in Britain. Thatcher actually said that this war expressed the right of the Falkland Islanders to "self-determination". But it was a war in defence of British imperialism in the widest sense of the term.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 19 2011 13:04

ew stop it with the Lenin please Baboon

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Jun 20 2011 01:11

I don't agree baboon; I think "Revolutionary Defencism" is the theory used by anti-imperialists and leftists (in the name of national self-determination and/or anti-imperialism) and inhereted from the Mensheviks (a position that Revolutionary Defeatism was created to counter).

Actually here's a snippet from a Trotskyist document that sums up revolutionary defeatism well:

Quote:
Lenin's formula: 'defeat is the lesser evil' means not that defeat of one's own country is the lesser evil as compared with the defeat of the enemy country; but that a military defeat resulting from the growth of the revolutionary movement is infinitely more beneficial to the proletariat and to the whole people than military victory assured by 'civil peace'.

War and the Fourth International

The slogans of national self-determination and anti-imperialism of post-WWII leftists (Trots, Marcyites, Maoists, etc) is basically Revolutionary Defencism in reverse- such as UK Trots (*Edit: with exceptions such as the SWP as pointed out above and later in the thread*) promoting an Argentine victory in the Falklands, or American Maoists propagandizing for the Iraqi Fedayeen or Shiite militias, etc.

If it were Revolutionary Defeatism, they would promote widescale and accelerated class war at home to force the belligerent nations to withdraw from imperialist war and thus push the socialist revolution onto the agenda (as happened all over Europe at the end of WWI). However, since we are in a low level of class struggle and class consciousness, this wouldn't make sense as a policy (though elements of it are still at the heart of the workers movement- internationalism, anti-militarism, etc).