Falklands War

[Pogue]

What is the socialist criticism of this conflict? Why did our side oppose it? I don't really know enough about it, its not studied in depth much over here.

How do you feel about/respond to the fact that Argentina's defeat brang down the dictatorship over there?

[The Idler]

The same way about Iraq. British Imperialism disguised as overthrowing a tinpot dictatorship.

[Wanted Man]

An interesting thread from about a year ago: http://www.revleft.com/vb/falkland-islands-sovereignty-t74787/index.html?t=74787&highlight=Falklands

I don't think it really matters what happened to the Argentinean dictatorship because of the war. It was going down already, it just used a good old patriotic war to extend its own lifespan. Compare to Georgia in South Ossetia last summer: they hoped to grab some land to get nationalist support and strategic or economic advantage, and hoped that the much larger power "owning" it would not be able to defend it.

Obviously, socialists in Britain condemned (or should have, I'm not sure what their position was) the imperialist war effort of their own bourgeoisie.

[Killfacer]

How is invading something which alread belongs to you and the population of which is in full support of you imperialism?

[Wanted Man]

How did it "belong" to Britain? Iraq and Afghanistan belong to the US, the holy land belongs to Israel, the Antilles belong to Holland, French Guyana to France, India "belonged" to Britain once. Sounds like a bourgeois nationalist defence of imperialism to me.

It doesn't become any less imperialist just because it has "belonged" to the imperialist country for a long time and the majority of the population (usually settlers) support it.

[Killfacer]

How did it "belong" to Britain? Iraq and Afghanistan belong to the US, the holy land belongs to Israel, the Antilles belong to Holland, French Guyana to France, India "belonged" to Britain once. Sounds like a bourgeois nationalist defence of imperialism to me.

It doesn't become any less imperialist just because it has "belonged" to the imperialist country for a long time and the majority of the population (usually settlers) support it.

The entirety of the Falkland's population is made up of British settlers, hence why they are more patriotic than us in the UK. It is a british colony, a british territory and the population wants to be british. I'm not defending britain, but calling it imperialist is just incorrect.

I fail to see how it is imperialist.

[Wanted Man]

A non-imperialist colony? Okay, that sounds about right.

[spartan]

The Falklands isn't a colony anymore it is a British overseas territory.

Just because it was a colony doesn't make it immediately 'bad', the Falklands were discovered by English sailors in the 16th century and it was uninhabited. Therefore those Europeans who came to settle the islands later weren't colonisers in the same mold as the genocidal nutters in North America and other places as they weren't displacing anyone because there was no one to displace.

The people who should decide what happens to the islands should be the people who have lived on the islands for the past 100 plus years, and as far as I am aware the majority of them have expressed a desire to remain with Britain.

Personally I would give them a referendum and let them decide what they want and whatever they decide that is it.

Of course some would say that these are British settlers and there word shouldn't be taken, but the fact is these islands have never had a stable population until these settlers arrived.

There is nothing special about the Falklands, if the Argentine dictatorship held the islands it wouldn't have been a big deal as they were allied to the US and west against the USSR anyway.

I personally believe that the whole Imperialism arguement just doesn't apply to the Falklands and the conflict between Britain and Argentina over who should be in control of the islands.

[PRC-UTE]

The entirety of the Falkland's population is made up of British settlers, hence why they are more patriotic than us in the UK. It is a british colony, a british territory and the population wants to be british. I'm not defending britain, but calling it imperialist is just incorrect.

I fail to see how it is imperialist.

You fail to see a lot of things.

[Killfacer]

You fail to see a lot of things.

You fail at everything.

[Killfacer]

A non-imperialist colony? Okay, that sounds about right.

Imperialism implies conquering somewhere and taking it off someone. It was simply settled by British people. I would have though that as a socialist, you would support the right of the inhabitants of the Falklands to choose for themselves and not be invaded by the argentinians.

[Angry Young Man]

It was a waste of money and it increased popular support for Thatcher. That's reason enough to call it a bollocks conflict to me.

[Invader Zim]

It was a waste of money and it increased popular support for Thatcher. That's reason enough to call it a bollocks conflict to me.


This. Incidentally, the exact same can be said of the invasion.

[Leo]

It is insane to say the invasion of Falkland islands by Britain was not imperialist, as it is as such to say it's invasion by Argentina wasn't imperialist. Falklands War was a textbook example of an imperialist war between two imperialist states waged for a key territory with strategic importance.

[Wanted Man]

Imperialism implies conquering somewhere and taking it off someone. It was simply settled by British people.
How so? Imperialism doesn't have to imply ethnic cleansing. The ownership has changed a few times in the past, by intervention of several imperialist states. Britain remains an imperialist power, and Britain's occupation of the Falklands is part of its imperialist hold on Latin America. I'm not saying that Argentina was somehow justified in attacking, or that it should happen again. But Argentina is not an imperialist power, it's a nation exploited by imperialism.

To pretend that this distinction doesn't exist is blindness, and people who do so shouldn't call themselves marxists. Indeed, many call themselves anarchists and claim that both states are equally "evil" because they think imperialism doesn't exist, or simply means "invading a country and killing people".

But let's pretend for a moment that we are on the same page (i.e. anti-imperialists). If so, the liberation of the third world requires its territorial integrity, and that requires the end of colonial throwbacks. Otherwise, Hong Kong and Macao should still be British and Portuguese, Manchuria should still be a Japanese puppet, etc.

Also, when the Netherlands left Indonesia, the majority of the Moluccans wanted them to stay, because they were going to be prosecuted by the Indonesians in revenge for their collaboration with the Dutch. Maybe the Dutch should have kept an imperialist presence in those islands, just for the sake of protecting those people? No, communists still called for the end of Dutch imperialism and for full Indonesian independence.


I would have though that as a socialist, you would support the right of the inhabitants of the Falklands to choose for themselves and not be invaded by the argentinians.
No, I don't think the majority decision of one very particular piece of land is always right. Otherwise, you'd have to support just about every little secessionist movement that can get a majority in one particular area.

Anyway, it is admittedly very difficult to deal with this issue without making some kind of perverted defence of bourgeois property "rights". But I'm not the one defending the Falkland's War itself. Supporters of the British ownership of the islands keep saying that it's basically some barren rocks with a few people on it, and it would be unfair on those people who largely want the British to stay.

Okay, then why defend the fact that thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded there, just to defend Britain's imperial interests in the region? The imperialist line seems to be to downplay the importance of the islands themselves, and pretend that the war was only waged as a noble struggle to protect British citizens. I really don't see how socialists can defend the fact that working class folks fought each other in brutal nightly hand-to-hand combat for such interests.

If you ran a socialist newspaper at the time, would you have also made a big "GOTCHA" headline and talk about how cool it is that hundreds of "Argies" got killed? Or denounce any anti-war unionists as traitors? Defence of the British imperialist "right" to some piece of land is sick enough. But I really can't understand why you're justifying the war.

[Leo]

But Argentina is not an imperialist power, it's a nation exploited by imperialism. To pretend that this distinction doesn't exist is blindness, and people who do so shouldn't call themselves marxists. How on earth are you gonna back up the claim that people like Peron or Galtiari were "exploited by imperialism"? Oh poor butchers of the Argentine working class, they are so exploited, we should all support them out of pity, right?

And talking about a nation being "exploited", it is you who shouldn't call yourself a marxist.

[Killfacer]

How so? Imperialism doesn't have to imply ethnic cleansing. The ownership has changed a few times in the past, by intervention of several imperialist states. Britain remains an imperialist power, and Britain's occupation of the Falklands is part of its imperialist hold on Latin America. I'm not saying that Argentina was somehow justified in attacking, or that it should happen again. But Argentina is not an imperialist power, it's a nation exploited by imperialism.

To pretend that this distinction doesn't exist is blindness, and people who do so shouldn't call themselves marxists. Indeed, many call themselves anarchists and claim that both states are equally "evil" because they think imperialism doesn't exist, or simply means "invading a country and killing people".

But let's pretend for a moment that we are on the same page (i.e. anti-imperialists). If so, the liberation of the third world requires its territorial integrity, and that requires the end of colonial throwbacks. Otherwise, Hong Kong and Macao should still be British and Portuguese, Manchuria should still be a Japanese puppet, etc.

Also, when the Netherlands left Indonesia, the majority of the Moluccans wanted them to stay, because they were going to be prosecuted by the Indonesians in revenge for their collaboration with the Dutch. Maybe the Dutch should have kept an imperialist presence in those islands, just for the sake of protecting those people? No, communists still called for the end of Dutch imperialism and for full Indonesian independence.


No, I don't think the majority decision of one very particular piece of land is always right. Otherwise, you'd have to support just about every little secessionist movement that can get a majority in one particular area.

Anyway, it is admittedly very difficult to deal with this issue without making some kind of perverted defence of bourgeois property "rights". But I'm not the one defending the Falkland's War itself. Supporters of the British ownership of the islands keep saying that it's basically some barren rocks with a few people on it, and it would be unfair on those people who largely want the British to stay.

Okay, then why defend the fact that thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded there, just to defend Britain's imperial interests in the region? The imperialist line seems to be to downplay the importance of the islands themselves, and pretend that the war was only waged as a noble struggle to protect British citizens. I really don't see how socialists can defend the fact that working class folks fought each other in brutal nightly hand-to-hand combat for such interests.

If you ran a socialist newspaper at the time, would you have also made a big "GOTCHA" headline and talk about how cool it is that hundreds of "Argies" got killed? Or denounce any anti-war unionists as traitors? Defence of the British imperialist "right" to some piece of land is sick enough. But I really can't understand why you're justifying the war.

Bullshit, it was only after the war that Britain turned the Falklands into a military base. I fail to see how a island without a military base and a population of well under 4000 is used by Britain in it's imperialist hold on south america.

The falklands have never "belonged" to argentina and i think it's fair to say that 100% of the population of the falklands doesn't want to be under the yoke of a tin-pot argentine dictator. This just smacks of hipocracy.

You're indonesian comparison is just planely poor. No one in the falklands want's to be argentinian, they are all British. There isn't some oppressed minority of Argentinians, there is only British citizens who want to be British.

The last bit of your argument is just vaguely offensive mudslinging.

Like i said right at the start of the thread and several times after, i do not support the war. If you listened instead of coming out with what is frankly a load of simpering leftist cliches then you may have understood me a bit better.

[Pogue]

I would have opposed it because it served the interests of Thatcher and the Argentine fascists, and caused the deaths of workers, but if it was the same war being carried out by say, a more left wing government (like a more left wing Labour government), what would the arguments against it be?

[Wanted Man]

Bullshit, it was only after the war that Britain turned the Falklands into a military base. I fail to see how a island without a military base and a population of well under 4000 is used by Britain in it's imperialist hold on south america.

The falklands have never "belonged" to argentina and i think it's fair to say that 100% of the population of the falklands doesn't want to be under the yoke of a tin-pot argentine dictator. This just smacks of hipocracy.

You're indonesian comparison is just planely poor. No one in the falklands want's to be argentinian, they are all British. There isn't some oppressed minority of Argentinians, there is only British citizens who want to be British.

The last bit of your argument is just vaguely offensive mudslinging.

Like i said right at the start of the thread and several times after, i do not support the war. If you listened instead of coming out with what is frankly a load of simpering leftist cliches then you may have understood me a bit better.
On the first half, read the previous thread, especially Zurdito's posts. For example:


Argentina isn't an imeprial or colonial power it is a semi-colonial nation destroyed by imperialist finance capital. Part of its territory, the Malvinas, is occupied by a hostile imeprialist power, which previosuly tried to invade Argentina int he 19th centruy and which has penetrated Argentina economcially ever since. As part of that strategy the british have sent settlers to colonise this part of Argentina's territory. The reason no Argentine's live there is because the British KICKED THEM OUT. Much like Israel is doing with arabs. Do you also support Israel's existence?


From what you've researched. Let me help you with your research. It goes like this:


Spain conquers Latin America and divides it into viceroyalties with regional governments.
The Viceroyalty of the rio de la Plata governs both modern-day Argentina and modern day Malvinas Islands. TheMalvinas Islands have no distinct regional autonomy or identity, they are just part of the region within the Viceroyalty governed from Buenos Aires.
The Viceroyalty liberates itself between 1811 and 1825. Argentina declares independence in 1812. The impetus was this was when Argentinians succesfully defeated, on their own, a British invasion of Buenos Aires in 1806.
The Malvinas pass under the jurisdiction of Buenos Aires, as part of the decolonisation process, whereby previously occupied territories become independent under republican government.
Then the British just illegally occupy the Malvinas, unilaterally expell all Argentines from the Island, "replace" the governor, and call it theirs.
To cement their unwelcome imperialist presence in Latin America, they send settlers there.

As for the "hippocracy": what's wrong? You don't think hippopotamuses are fit to rule? Anyway, the "tin pot dictator" thing is funny. I guess Maggie Thatcher was a true democrat, non-tin pot of course. And nowadays, if you want to compare bourgeois governments (I think it's a useless endeavour), one would probably be better off under Kirchner than under Blair or Brown. Yet the British settlers want to stay with Britain. Maybe it's the fact that they are settlers on a far-flung imperial property that matters, rather than any interest in freedom or social justice?

I don't think you understood the comparison, I'm aware that there are no Argentinians living on the islands, because - get this - they were kicked out. Why exactly should this status continue?

As for the war itself, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but it wasn't that clear to me at all. In your first post in the thread, it looked like you were trying to justify the war by claiming that the Falklands "belong" to Britain and that the war was therefore not imperialist. If you want to continue to deny that the war was imperialist, but don't support it either, what exactly is your position?

And if "imperialism", "oppression", etc. are just leftist clichés, there isn't much point in talking, is there? On RevLeft, a lot of people do at least try to understand and recognise such "clichés" as being the reality.

[Wanted Man]

I would have opposed it because it served the interests of Thatcher and the Argentine fascists, and caused the deaths of workers, but if it was the same war being carried out by say, a more left wing government (like a more left wing Labour government), what would the arguments against it be?
The arguments would be exactly the same. A more left wing Labour government has already done much worse things in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq than the Tories ever did in the Falklands. I don't see how the circumstances change. It would still be workers getting killed in defence of British imperialism and the British bourgeoisie. We're not anti-war because we're anti-Tory or anti-Labour, but because we're anti-imperialist.

[Cumannach]

Neither the British bourgeoisie, the British proletariat, the British people or the British government have any right to claim 'ownership' of any territory on the other side of the globe about as far away from Britain as you can get.

Argentinian fascists have just as little right. But the people of Argentina and South America have every right to reject any European claim of ownership of South American land, onshore or offshore, including the seas and oil reserves around them.

[Killfacer]

Neither the British bourgeoisie, the British proletariat, the British people or the British government have any right to claim 'ownership' of any territory on the other side of the globe about as far away from Britain as you can get.

Argentinian fascists have just as little right. But the people of Argentina and South America have every right to reject any European claim of ownership of South American land, onshore or offshore, including the seas and oil reserves around them.

Now you're the ones talking about "territory", should it not be down to what the people want? not down to some arbitary "it's closer to us so give it to us" rule.

[Killfacer]

On the first half, read the previous thread, especially Zurdito's posts. For example:



[/list]
As for the "hippocracy": what's wrong? You don't think hippopotamuses are fit to rule? Anyway, the "tin pot dictator" thing is funny. I guess Maggie Thatcher was a true democrat, non-tin pot of course. And nowadays, if you want to compare bourgeois governments (I think it's a useless endeavour), one would probably be better off under Kirchner than under Blair or Brown. Yet the British settlers want to stay with Britain. Maybe it's the fact that they are settlers on a far-flung imperial property that matters, rather than any interest in freedom or social justice?

I don't think you understood the comparison, I'm aware that there are no Argentinians living on the islands, because - get this - they were kicked out. Why exactly should this status continue?

As for the war itself, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but it wasn't that clear to me at all. In your first post in the thread, it looked like you were trying to justify the war by claiming that the Falklands "belong" to Britain and that the war was therefore not imperialist. If you want to continue to deny that the war was imperialist, but don't support it either, what exactly is your position?

And if "imperialism", "oppression", etc. are just leftist clichés, there isn't much point in talking, is there? On RevLeft, a lot of people do at least try to understand and recognise such "clichés" as being the reality.

I deny that the war is imperialist, but my position is that although the argentinians were in the wrong, it certainly wasn't worth people dying for.

I have to admit i am unaware that there have ever been argentinians who lived on the Falklands, could you please show me a site about this.

I actually like you, but i thought the sentance "simpering leftist cliches" sounded so good i could hardly not say it. Sorry.

[Magdalen]

I would have opposed it because it served the interests of Thatcher and the Argentine fascists, and caused the deaths of workers, but if it was the same war being carried out by say, a more left wing government (like a more left wing Labour government), what would the arguments against it be?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the Militant's argument at the time?

[Pogue]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the Militant's argument at the time?

I'm not making an argument. I'm just saying that the only grounds on which I would have known to oppose that war is that Thatcher wanted it, and what Thatcher wanted was always bad for the working class and humanity generally.

[Leo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the Militant's argument at the time?

Well militant supported it in the "support our boys" sense and said they would continue the war on socialist lines if they were in charge while making a shy criticism of Thatcher as far as I know.

[Invader Zim]

It is insane to say the invasion of Falkland islands by Britain was not imperialist, as it is as such to say it's invasion by Argentina wasn't imperialist. Falklands War was a textbook example of an imperialist war between two imperialist states waged for a key territory with strategic importance.


Oh, what stratigic importance did the Falkland Islands have? Before you answer, consider that just a few years before the war, the British attempted to convinse the Islanders to give up their British national identity and give the islands to Argentina.

Obviously the Falkland Islands were not of stratigic importance. Rather they were of political importance to the ruling class of both nations involved in the war.

Today on the other hand, following the discovery of oil, they are of supreme economic importance.

But it was imperialistic, in that Britain faught to protect one of its last reminants of empire. But don't confuse that. The war was defending a reminant of empire, but preserving the empire had little, if anything, to do with the reason to go to war. The war was faught because it was politically expediant for the ruling party, and the jack-asses in opposition didn't want to be seen to be failing their fellow British citizens on the Islands.


I have to admit i am unaware that there have ever been argentinians who lived on the Falklands, could you please show me a site about this.

You aren't aware of it because it isn't true, Argentina has never had a colony on the islands which as lasted longer than 2 years; and that was in 1829-31.

I did write a lengthy post outlining the history of the islands, which was designed to show that neither Britain nor Argentina has a 'right' to the islands. But unfortunately some weird error occured and its gone; and I lack the energy to re-write it.

However, on a more disturbing nore, the support for Argentina here comes, not in defeence of the people who actually live on the Islands, but from a foolish belief that an act of colonial imerperialism, committed by dead, people nearly 200 years ago in some way strips people, who are alive, of the right to live where they like, speak whatever language they like, strip them of their identity, etc. Bizarrely it also leads them to support failing fascist dictatorships as long as they happen to control former colonies and happen to be in dispute with former colonial powers. The great irony of this position is that the majority of Argentinian's are also decendents of colonial invaders. Suffice to say, I'm not convinced that all of the arguments levelled in this thread are compatable with socialism; at least as i see it.

The fact of the matter is that, with a few disputed exceptions, every single person who has ever lived on the Falkland islands, that we are aware of, was a colonist and an imperialist. Until the mid-18th century, the height of Atlantic empire building, nobody lived there. So nobody was displaced.

[Cumannach]

Bizarrely it also leads them to support failing fascist dictatorships ...

If you're saying anybody on this thread has 'supported' fascist dictatorships, how can you back that up. By those standards you're an ardent supporter of British military Imperialism.

[Zurdito]

I laid my line out here with Devrim:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/campaign-raise-money-t89811/index.html?p=1321900



on social chauvinist, I disagree, this would imply fighting to impose oppression on the British proletariat, this wasn't the case. Organising the Argentine working class to fight British imperialism in the South Atlantic, which in this case retained the form of classic colonialism, in no way implied attacking the British proletariat,r ather implied a struggle against a common enemy.

Secondly, it looks as if you are trying to characterise the "radical rhetoric" as empty, and a form of veiled support for the Junta. This is somehting Moreno would have been capable of, but it wasn't the case here. If we look at the objective reality of the time, the slogan was not abstract, but urgent.

British imperialism was on the attack in the South Atlantic, fighting to retain its colonial possessions.

Millions of Argentine workers were rallying in different ways (food drives, protests, manifestations against British capital in Argentina which ran up against the state's protection of these interests) against British imperialism, and crucially organising themselves to do. not out of support for the regime (though many were turning towards the regime in a contradictory, very conditional and highly unstable way at the time).

As I am sure you know only the day before the invasion was announced the Junta had faced it's largest protest, with hundreds of thousands of workers and human rights/political activists running up against heavy police repression which caused more than one death (I believe more than one, check if you like). A large part of this same vanguard sector then came out to show solidarity against Britain.

The situation can therefore be characterised as one where there was a huge political momentum taking place, which opened up the question, (in the middle of a regional economic crisis sparked by debt to the imperialist powers) of Argentina's semi-colony status and the national bourgeoisie's inability to provide basic democratic rights or political independence from colonialism, or to sufficiently develop its means of production to the level of those of a modern industrialised civilisation. To this the PST counterposed the working class' incentive and ability to carry out the struggle against British imperialism to the end.

The working class is hit hard by these issues, they are legitimate concerns, and only a working class movement can provide a solution. A working class vanguard which does not take leadership on these issues is not revolutionary.


Regarding fascist, the Junta in Argentina was not "fascist", this implies coming to power through a mass movement based on class collaboration towards some national destiny. Peronism has much mor ein common with fascism. the Junta was bureaucratic authoritarian and very much opposed to mass participation, and actually did much to break Argentine corporatism and impose a liberal economic model. they sought to weaken the unions by seperating them from the state and encouraging individualism int he workign class, not by incorporating them into the state as peronism did. it's outlook was pretty pro-anglo saxon in terms of geo-poltiics (unlike Peron who called back to a Catholic tradition and sympathised with the axis, while the Junta claimed to be defending western democracy from communism) and pro-free trade, with an attack on the state's role in the economy. quite different from fascism.

[Invader Zim]

If you're saying anybody on this thread has 'supported' fascist dictatorships, how can you back that up. By those standards you're an ardent supporter of British military Imperialism.
If you support an invasion by a fascist government, which was directly designed to maintain that fascist government, you unequivically are supporting that regime's actions.


By those standards you're an ardent supporter of British military Imperialism.

Obviously you haven't payed a great deal of attention to what I have actually written in this thread.

RC: "It was a waste of money and it increased popular support for Thatcher. That's reason enough to call it a bollocks conflict to me."

IZ: "This."

And,

IZ: "I did write a lengthy post outlining the history of the islands, which was designed to show that neither Britain nor Argentina has a 'right' to the islands."

[Sam_b]

Imperialism implies conquering somewhere and taking it off someone. It was simply settled by British people.


That is a very crude and basic generalisation. Yes, imperialism often manifests itself in imperialist war, but there is a much bigger sphere than just that.

I suggest as background reading you read Lenin on 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism': http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm


We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves—until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed.

[Killfacer]

Can someone remind me of this stranglehold which you all seem to think that Britain has over south america?

[Zurdito]

Can someone remind me of this stranglehold which you all seem to think that Britain has over south america?

Well Argentina was a virtual British colony until the 1930's, for example, living mainly off meat exportation to Britain. The country's rails, ports and infrastrucutre were largely built with British capital for this purpose, with Argentina permanently in debt to Britain, and with its currency tied to the gold standard for long periods at a time. Before Argentina even existed as a country in fact, the government of the region which preceeded it was in debt to Bearings Bank, who saw the chance to make the wealth of the Pampas their own after the failure of the outright invasions attempted in 1806.

Also the Malvinas were not "simply settled by British people", this was onyl after the Argentine settlement was destroyed by the US navy the year before and then the land was forcibly taken from the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata govt in 1833 by Britain, using a justification of a promise Spain had made to them, which ignored the right to self-determination of the new post-colonial societies in the region, tying them to the inter-imperial treaties made by their previous rulers.

Britain's ruling class pursued the policy of settling the Islands to have a buffer in the region to help its imposition of its economic interests in the region, whose rich lands it was hungrily eyeing at the expense of the masses who lived there.

Obviously this is not some kind of accusation at the abstraction "Britain", but at its ruling classes, whose interests are the diametrical opposite of the working class. This is why the argentinian popular struggle against imperialism was and is a fight against the same enemy as the one faced by the British workers when they resist their bosses.

[Invader Zim]

Well Argentina was a virtual British colony until the 1930's, for example, living mainly off meat exportation to Britain.

Certainly Argentina saw substantial investment from Britain, but to claim that the benefit of this was simply to the British, and excluded the Argentine, bourgeoisie is ludicrous. Furthermore it is also false to claim that Argentina did not deal heavily with other European powers. Just look at Argentina’s contribution to WW1.


Also the Malvinas were not "simply settled by British people", this was onyl after the Argentine settlement was destroyed by the US navy the year before and then the land was forcibly taken from the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata govt in 1833 by Britain, using a justification of a promise Spain had made to them, which ignored the right to self-determination of the new post-colonial societies in the region, tying them to the inter-imperial treaties made by their previous rulers.



Firstly, the islands had been left without a settlement for as long as the Provinces had established a recognised colony there - two years. In other words, the British re-established a settlement on a set of islands abandoned by its former rulers. It isn't as if Britain, in her typical imperialist routine of this period, simply invaded and took a piece of regardless of the wishes of the areas populous. There was no significant population there and nor was there a pre-existing uncontested claim to the islands.

And secondly, taking the bourgeois legalistic position, as you have done, is ill-advised. Complaining that the British ignored the rights of the Provinces, and their subsequent protests, is misguided because that is precisely what the Provinces did to the British in the June of 1829.[1] The British complaint at this move was because theoretically (but in the light of the fact that Britain was not protecting her ‘rights’; not practically) the Islands were not the Provinces to colonise. Legally, as accepted by Spain (again, if not in practise) the islands weren’t part of the Spanish Empire when Argentina gained its independence. As such, when British influence and control returned to the islands, it was a re-establishment of control to protect Britain’s legal rights. But this is of course bourgeois legal fetishism at its worst. The issue regarding the islands from a modern point of view is one of self determination. Arguing about who legally ‘owned’ the islands 190 years ago is a fruitless endeavour.


which ignored the right to self-determination of the new post-colonial societies in the region,

In 1833, when the British took control of the islands, there was no 'post-colonial' society in the Islands. That society, along with its governor, had withdrawn, and those few inhabitants remained on the islands (who were multi-national) were abandoned.



Britain's ruling class pursued the policy of settling the Islands to have a buffer in the region to help its imposition of its economic interests in the region, whose rich lands it was hungrily eyeing at the expense of the masses who lived there.

No so. The reason why Britain re-established its control over the islands was because they suspected that the American government of planning to install a military base on the Islands.

As for your bizarre interpretation of the history of Argentina, and Britain’s interest in it, lets examine the facts. To begin with let’s start with population. Argentina's population was around 500,000 in the early 19th century.[2] London's alone, at the beginning of the same century, was in excess of a million. And much of its [Argentina’s, not London’s] rich farm land was left uninhabited, or tended by subsistence farmers, who dominated the country’s population.[3] That trend increased substantially in the late 1820s when farm land increased in size.[4] This begs a question, where did the Provinces acquire a goodly portion of this land to farm, which would be so beneficial to its economy fifty years later? By forcefully subduing the native population, which resisted farming expansion.[5]

Once the unfortunate native population was put down, and millions of acres of farm land were acquired, the population became even more rural. The impact of this, in the 1820s and 30s was a reduction in trade and depopulation of urban areas.[6] To put this into perspective, in the mid-19th century the bulk of the population was rural.[7] Yet despite this, exports were very low as was actual agricultural output.

To prove it, let us examine an example. The highest earner, in terms of exports, came from wool. So let us use that. The sheep population in 1830 was 2.5 million and 1,812 tons of wool was exported. That population while increasing, by 1840, to 5 million didn’t see an increase in exports of wool, in fact, the reverse; this confirms the point that during this period the rural population was increasing at the expense of the urban population, butalso that the rural population was primarily made up of subsistance farmers. Wool exports reduced to 1,610 tons. It was not until the 1860s that significant change occurred and Europe began taking an interest in Argentina. This is also shown by material economic fact. In 1860 the sheep population was 14 million, and wool exports were 13,317 metric tons. By 1870 that had increased to 41 million sheep and 65,704 tons of exported wool. [8] Indeed much of the investment into Argentina, in particular from Britain, was because of the changie in emphasis to sheep farming, and of course the massive Agricultural revolution in Argentina, which occurred between 1860-1890.

So put bluntly, you are simply mistaken. Following the revolution, Europe saw Argentina as a backwater irrelevance until well into the later part of the 19th century. In 1833 British interest in Argentina was rapidly diminishing, not increasing. The reputation of Argentina, as a frontier for merchants and business, was built up in the late 19th century following the beginning of the Agricultural revolution, long after the period we are discussing.


This is why the argentinian popular struggle against imperialism was and is a fight against the same enemy as the one faced by the British workers when they resist their bosses.

The Argentine invasion of the islands was hardly a 'struggle' against 'imperialism', and in no way did it benefit the Argentinean working classes, none of whom either lived or derived any benefit from a group of sparsely populated islands three hundred miles away from their nearest coast. Just like the British defence of the islands, the actual Argentine motive for war was a political move to preserve the regime in residence at that time.

[1] M. B. R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell, The Falkland Islands (London, 1960), p. 40.

[2] James R. Scobie, Argentina: A City and Nation, 2nd ed., (New York, 1971), p. 304.

[3] David Rock, Argentina 1516-1987: from Spanish Colonization to Alfonsin (Los Angeles, 1987), p. 97.

[4] Ibid, pp. 96-97.

[5] Scobie, Argentina, p. 79; Rock, Argentina 1516-1987, p. 97.

[6] Rock, Argentina 1516-1987, p. 97.

[7] H. S. Ferns, Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1977), p. 1.

[8] Rock, Argentina 1516-1987, p. 134; Ferns, Britain and Argentina, p. 365.

[Killfacer]

Invader zim said what i would have said if i knew enough about the falklands. Have some rep. (i gave you rep too recently, have some another time)

[Invader Zim]

Invader zim said what i would have said if i knew enough about the falklands. Have some rep. (i gave you rep too recently, have some another time)

Well, I'm not sure our views are in concordence. My position is not in support of the British claim, any more than it is in support of the Argentine claim; it is not even neutral, rather I view 'choosing sides' as a waste of time (other than as an interesting and abstract historical question). Nor is my position in favour of Britain's military re-establishment ("liberation", to some) of control over the islands in the war. Similarly I don't support the military invasion of the Islands by Argentina. My argument is primarily concerned with is examining the history of this event rather than the propaganda surrounding it; it is not about siding with either of the beligrant nations, as I suspect you may do. If I were to have to choose a position, it is one of self determination for the Islanders for reasons I have outlined. And other than as an abstract historical discussion (which, being something of a history nerd, I tend to shamefuly indulge in), my interest in the subject ends there.

[Killfacer]

Well, I'm not sure our views are in concordence. My position is not in support of the British claim, any more than it is in support of the Argentine claim; it is not even neutral, rather I view 'choosing sides' as a waste of time (other than as an interesting and abstract historical question). Nor is my position in favour of Britain's military re-establishment ("liberation", to some) of control over the islands in the war. Similarly I don't support the military invasion of the Islands by Argentina. My argument is primarily concerned with is examining the history of this event rather than the propaganda surrounding it; it is not about siding with either of the beligrant nations, as I suspect you may do. If I were to have to choose a position, it is one of self determination for the Islanders for reasons I have outlined. And other than an abstract historical discussion, my interest in the subject ends there.

I said at the start of the thread that i do not support any kind of war over the islands and i certainly don't support Britains "right" over it. I simply disagreed with all the cries of "imperialism" at Britain and the idea that Argentina was some how the victim of the war.

[Invader Zim]

I said at the start of the thread that i do not support any kind of war over the islands and i certainly don't support Britains "right" over it. I simply disagreed with all the cries of "imperialism" at Britain and the idea that Argentina was some how the victim of the war.

Fair enough then, my apologies.

Though I would stress that Britain's 'defence' of the islands was, because the Islands are the remenant of empire, fundermentally an act of imperialism. However, unlike most acts of imperialism, this war was (from a policy, rather than popular, point of view) not about promoting Britain's imperial/economic interests, but about preserving Thatcher's government.

The exact same is true of Argentina, the only difefrence being retention of empire with creation of empire. The political motivation, to preserve the regime, is the same.

[Random Precision]

Brezhnev took Afghanistan,
Begin took Beirut,
Galtieri took the Union Jack.
And Maggie, over lunch one day
Took a cruiser with all hands
Apparently, to make him give it back.

[Zurdito]

[quote]Certainly Argentina saw substantial investment from Britain, but to claim that the benefit of this was simply to the British, and excluded the Argentine, bourgeoisie is ludicrous.

Who claimed this? Since when does a dependent bourgeoisie not act as a junior partner to imperialism? Nobody said the argentine agro-exporter ruling class did not benefit. I don't know where you pulled this argument out of, have you heard of the theory of uneven and combined development?



Furthermore it is also false to claim that Argentina did not deal heavily with other European powers. Just look at Argentina’s contribution to WW1.


Who claimed this?

Was Britain the main beenficiary of trade with Argentina or not?

Did anyone ever claim that Britain established a monopoly on Argentine foreign trade?




Firstly, the islands had been left without a settlement for as long as the Provinces had established a recognised colony there - two years. In other words, the British re-established a settlement on a set of islands abandoned by its former rulers. It isn't as if Britain, in her typical imperialist routine of this period, simply invaded and took a piece of regardless of the wishes of the areas populous. There was no significant population there and nor was there a pre-existing uncontested claim to the islands.


Of course there was a pre-existing claim, the UPRLP had been governing them previously and trying establishing a colony until the US marines destroyed it in protest at taxes on their seal hunting.


And secondly, taking the bourgeois legalistic position, as you have done, is ill-advised. Complaining that the British ignored the rights of the Provinces, and their subsequent protests, is misguided because that is precisely what the Provinces did to the British in the June of 1829.[1] The British complaint at this move was because theoretically (but in the light of the fact that Britain was not protecting her ‘rights’; not practically) the Islands were not the Provinces to colonise. Legally, as accepted by Spain (again, if not in practise) the islands weren’t part of the Spanish Empire when Argentina gained its independence. As such, when British influence and control returned to the islands, it was a re-establishment of control to protect Britain’s legal rights.

Yes of course, and in such a dispute any progressive puts forward the line of decolonisation, i.e. that the European empires should be forced out of the whole region and their ex-territories divided up by the new republics.



In 1833, when the British took control of the islands, there was no 'post-colonial' society in the Islands.That society, along with its governor, had withdrawn, and those few inhabitants remained on the islands (who were multi-national) were abandoned.


Yes we have already established this and the reasons why. This does not change the fact that the UPRLP had a political aim to integrate the Islands into their territory and that British imeprialism took these for tis own, i.e. a clear dispute between a decolonised, developing republic, and an imperialist power.




No so. The reason why Britain re-established its control over the islands was because they suspected that the American government of planning to install a military base on the Islands.

What?

The sole reason of settling the Islands was to spite the US? For fun maybe?

Or actually, it was a race to carve up portions of the world in their own interest, both against the US and Argentina?



As for your bizarre interpretation of the history of Argentina, and Britain’s interest in it, lets examine the facts. To begin with let’s start with population. Argentina's population was around 500,000 in the early 19th century.[2] London's alone, at the beginning of the same century, was in excess of a million. And much of its [Argentina’s, not London’s] rich farm land was left uninhabited, or tended by subsistence farmers, who dominated the country’s population.[3] That trend increased substantially in the late 1820s when farm land increased in size.[4] This begs a question, where did the Provinces acquire a goodly portion of this land to farm, which would be so beneficial to its economy fifty years later? By forcefully subduing the native population, which resisted farming expansion.[5]


Yes, all true. I'm not sure how this affects our discussion.



Once the unfortunate native population was put down, and millions of acres of farm land were acquired, the population became even more rural. The impact of this, in the 1820s and 30s was a reduction in trade and depopulation of urban areas.[6] To put this into perspective, in the mid-19th century the bulk of the population was rural.[7] Yet despite this, exports were very low as was actual agricultural output.

To prove it, let us examine an example. The highest earner, in terms of exports, came from wool. So let us use that. The sheep population in 1830 was 2.5 million and 1,812 tons of wool was exported. That population while increasing, by 1840, to 5 million didn’t see an increase in exports of wool, in fact, the reverse; this confirms the point that during this period the rural population was increasing at the expense of the urban population, butalso that the rural population was primarily made up of subsistance farmers. Wool exports reduced to 1,610 tons. It was not until the 1860s that significant change occurred and Europe began taking an interest in Argentina. This is also shown by material economic fact. In 1860 the sheep population was 14 million, and wool exports were 13,317 metric tons. By 1870 that had increased to 41 million sheep and 65,704 tons of exported wool. [8] Indeed much of the investment into Argentina, in particular from Britain, was because of the changie in emphasis to sheep farming, and of course the massive Agricultural revolution in Argentina, which occurred between 1860-1890.


Argentina's independence from Spain was sponsored by Britain precisely because of the high amount of illegal british trade going through Buenos Aires. In fact by 1776, British commerce going through Buenos Aires was higher than Spanish commerce, prompting the implementation of the Bourbon Reforms in the region in order to be able to compete.

Likewise Britain economically supported the independence of Uruguay (at the time la Banda Oriental and a province of the UPRLP) to act as a buffer against both Brasil and Buenos Aires.

In another question, Britain didn't try to invade Buenos Aires in 1806?

Or in 1833 Argentina was not exploited by Britain via the global economy? Are you telling me that Argentina didn't act as a raw material exporter to Britain in 1833? Who was the govenror of Buenos Aires at the time? Where did he get his economic power from? Was Juan Manuel de Rosas, member of the Argentine landowning oligarchy at the time and most powerful governor in the region (later to become united national leader), not in fact a meat exporter to britain who had invested in new refrigerating techniques to improve his trade?

What was the purpose of the pact for Free Navigation of the rivers Parana and La Plata, signed between Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Entre Rios and Corrientes, in 1831? Was it not in large part to allow each province to export its bovine wealth to Britain without being taxed by Buenos Aires?

So regardless of the boom post-1860, the role of Britain from the very start in Argentina was one of heavy profiteering.



So put bluntly, you are simply mistaken.

lol.



Just like the British defence of the islands, the actual Argentine motive for war was a political move to preserve the regime in residence at that time.


Yes, nobody doubts the reasons of the Junta. This is not my point and love for them was not the reason why the Agrentina working class organised itself on a mass basis to support the struggle. I already posted about this earlier in this thread on this very page though.

[Invader Zim]

Did anyone ever claim that Britain established a monopoly on Argentine foreign trade?

Z: -

"Well Argentina was a virtual British colony until the 1930's, for example, living mainly off meat exportation to Britain."



Of course there was a pre-existing claim, the UPRLP had been governing them previously and trying establishing a colony until the US marines destroyed it in protest at taxes on their seal hunting.

Another mis-representation of the facts. The American's destroyed the settlement because Vernet wasn't simply taxing seal hunting, but because he was capturing US vessles (in some cases, rigging them for war). The US navy treated Vernet as a pirate.

As for a pre-existing claim, the UPRLP's one ignored a pre-existing claim; thus their claim to the islands was hardly uncontested. What part of that have you failed to understand?


Yes of course, and in such a dispute any progressive puts forward the line of decolonisation, i.e. that the European empires should be forced out of the whole region and their ex-territories divided up by the new republics.


The 'progressive line' as you put it, didn't exist in 1833; and it bears no relevence to this discussion, because the dispute was simply one between two vying bougeois groups. The topic is about the bougeois legalities of the matter, which you brought up, and contrary to your belief, the claim of the Provinces was not rock solid and nor was it uncontested. Control over the Islands in the early 19th century was a matter of international law, and for the Provinces, whether Britain would back her stake. And unfortunately for the Provinces, because of American plans in the region, it did.



The sole reason of settling the Islands was to spite the US?

Yes, but perhaps not sole. The remaining British citizens on the Islands, which were rapidly descending into lawlessness and piracy petitioned the state to take the Islands under its protection. No doubt that was also a factor. But the primary factor was the rise in US interest in the Islands. This is a well documented fact, and one which you can read in a number of the works I have provided for you in my previous post to you.


Or actually, it was a race to carve up portions of the world in their own interest, both against the US and Argentina?

As stated, Britain had little interest in South America at this time, and it certainly wasn't interested in carving up the Americas after recieving a bloody nose in the North; it had turned its sights from the West and to the East and was busy building itself a new empire in India.


Yes, all true. I'm not sure how this affects our discussion.

Because it is the reason why European interest in Argentina rapidly diminished in this period.


Argentina's independence from Spain was sponsored by Britain precisely because of the high amount of illegal british trade going through Buenos Aires. In fact by 1776, British commerce going through Buenos Aires was higher than Spanish commerce, prompting the implementation of the Bourbon Reforms in the region in order to be able to compete.Irrelevent, we are discussing a period after Independence, when the economy of Argentina rapidly changed following the vast expansion of farm land in the 1920s. The population of Buenos Aires dropped, as did trade, as the population migrated to the newly mastered rural areas. This is also a well documented fact you can read in the previous works I cited.



In another question, Britain didn't try to invade Buenos Aires in 1806?Indeed, but that was when Argentina was a part of the Spanish Empire, and Britain was at that time at war with Spain as part of the Napoleonic wars. Furthermore in 1806 the economic position of Argentina was very different to what it was by 1830.


Or in 1833 Argentina was not exploited by Britain via the global economy? Certainly not in the way you are thinking. As stated, British interest in Argentina was negligable at this point.


Are you telling me that Argentina didn't act as a raw material exporter to Britain in 1833?Argentinan exports during this period, were as stated, very limited; as shown by the amount of wool exported. The economic changes that would rapidly see a great deal of interest in Argentina, from Britain, occured after the ousting of Rosas.



So regardless of the boom post-1860, the role of Britain from the very start in Argentina was one of heavy profiteering.No, British interest in Argentina after independence reduced drastically as Argentina's change in economic position proved not to be profitable for Britain. I've already proved this. And I'm going to gto out on a limb and say that you have no idea about this topic. Well thankfully that can be remedied, read the books I cited earlier, as well as some articles on the topic. You can start with this one which spells it out: -

H. S. Ferns, 'Investment and Trade between Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century', The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1950), pp. 203-218.


This is not my point and love for them was not the reason why the Agrentina working class organised itself on a mass basis to support the struggle.Indeed, petty nationalism was. Just as petty nationalism saw the vast bulk of Germans support the Nazi expnasion across Europe. Socialists are opposed to nationalism because it divides the working class.

[Zurdito]

"Well Argentina was a virtual British colony until the 1930's, for example, living mainly off meat exportation to Britain."


And why does this imply a British monopoly of Argentine trade? Did Britain impose trading monopolies on its colonies at the time?



As for a pre-existing claim, the UPRLP's one ignored a pre-existing claim; thus their claim to the islands was hardly uncontested. What part of that have you failed to understand?

The part where you ignore hte logic of decolonisation which negates claims between empire's for territories in the new world and hands them over to the new decolonised states.



The 'progressive line' as you put it, didn't exist in 1833; and it bears no relevence to this discussion, because the dispute was simply one between two vying bougeois groups.

In your ultra-left line, yes. However to someone viewing it from the perspective that bourgeois liberal revolutions at that time in history were progressive, it was not "simply" this, though it was this (to the extent that Argentina's rulign class at the time could genuinely be called a bourgeoisie which I am not sure of, due precisely to the fact that it was kept in dependence on raw material exporting), but also a dispute between a newly decolonised republic in a period of consolidation of national sovereignity and the construction of a genuine developed bourgeois society, and an empire.

The fact that Argentina never fully completed its bourgeois reovlution (in the sense that marxists udnerstand the term) is exactly why marxists see the struggle to complete this revolution in Argentina today as progressive, and one we must make our own.



As stated, Britain had little interest in South America at this time, and it certainly wasn't interested in carving up the Americas after recieving a bloody nose in the North; it had turned its sights from the West and to the East and was busy building itself a new empire in India.


Considering that Britain managed to maintain an imperial presence in every continent int he world during this period, I don't see the argument that it was "preoccupied" in India. The point of Argentina's level of priority to the British ruling class is not the point here. Empire's have regions which they give much less priority than others. This doesn't change the huge improtance of the empire for all the societies dominated by it.

The fact remains that the Argentinian elite at the time was determined by its access to britain, as de Rosas success and that of the other cuadillos in the "pampa humeda" regions shows: precisely the regions which had most trade with Britain at the time, and the sectors which were able to adapt their practices to best take advantage of British demand, were the ones which rose to hegemony in the period, and the economic policy of De Rosas, establishing internal economic liberalisation to faciltiate external trade through Bs As amongst the provinces of the Pacto Federal (the central/north eastern provinces of Bs As, Cordoba, Santa Fe, Entre Rios and to a lesser extent Corrientes), was geared towards consolidating this.



Because it is the reason why European interest in Argentina rapidly diminished in this period.

It may have. This doesn't negate Argentina being a virtual British colony at the time. In fact it's quite funny, in this very thread you mentioned earlier declining British itnerest in the Malvinas at the end of the 1970's. Yet these remained a British colony. So, one does not negate the other.


Indeed, but that was when Argentina was a part of the Spanish Empire, and Britain was at that time at war with Spain as part of the Napoleonic wars. Furthermore in 1806 the economic position of Argentina was very different to what it was by 1830.

"Very" different?

Argentina remained an agro-export based economy aqnd access to hegmony in Argentina sopciety remained detemrined by control of such commerce.


Certainly not in the way you are thinking. As stated, British interest in Argentina was negligable at this point.

Not negligible to the Argentine ruling class which rose to this position precisely based ont he advantage they had in this sector.


And I'm going to gto out on a limb and say that you have no idea about this topic.

I have studied the basics form an Argentine angle. Your knowledge is all from the British angle and therefore equates a fall in british prioritising of the region with a fall in argentina's status as virtual colony, which is false.



Well thankfully that can be remedied, read the books I cited earlier, as well as some articles on the topic. You can start with this one which spells it out: -

H. S. Ferns, 'Investment and Trade between Britain and Argentina in the Nineteenth Century', The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1950), pp. 203-218.


I would like to read this at some point. Sadly in the immediate future it doesn't look likely. But I am interested and thank your suggestion.

May I suggest Marshall, PJ (1998). The Eighteenth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume II, and Andrew Porter, The Nineteenth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume III, who both advance the theory and evidence for informal British colonies in Argentina and China. here is the first, for example (the second is not online). he says exactly what I am saying:
http://books.google.com/books?id=S2EXN8JTwAEC&pg=PA157&vq=argentina&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0#PPA157,M1


Indeed, petty nationalism was. Just as petty nationalism saw the vast bulk of Germans support the Nazi expnasion across Europe. Socialists are opposed to nationalism because it divides the working class

The working class is divided. Socialists do not oppose the struggles of oppressed groups because they bring up these divisions, rather we support them in order to overcome the material basis of the division.

Now if you want to get into the argument over whether Argentina or Latin America today are semi-colonies of the US and EU, then we can have that argument too.

[Bolshevik-Leninist]

http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/MalvinasSV17.html
The following article was first published in Socialist Voice No. 17 (Fall 1982).

Malvinas War Tests Leftists

The repercussions set in motion by Argentina's seizure of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands from Britain on April 2 were far out of proportion to the importance of the islands themselves. Despite the fact that the Argentine military junta enjoyed excellent relations with all the imperialist powers, world imperialism was clearly shaken by the seizure and united against it. Britain's Western European partners quickly joined in economic sanctions against the "aggressor." The United States dropped its initial "honest broker" role and offered military aid to its British ally. Even Russia and China refused to veto Britain's anti-Argentine resolution in the United Nations. Any threat to the delicate fabric of world stability had to be squashed.

For Marxist revolutionaries, the united front of imperialism was the decisive issue in the war and meant that we stood for the defeat of Britain and the military defense of Argentine forces. Our position of military support implies not the least political support for the Argentine dictatorship, a regime justly hated by the working class for its open butchery of militants and class repression. Indeed, Galtieri's regime was faltering and its attack on the Malvinas was a diversion intended to offset growing working-class unrest. From the junta's point of view, the move was a desperate gamble that resulted in high military and economic losses, whose burden fell most heavily on the masses. Given the line-up of forces, Galtieri's attack was adventurist and should be condemned, but once war broke out Marxists defended Argentina from British imperialism.

Great Britain's historical claim to the islands is clearly colonialist. Argentina's claims are more tenable but far from certain; tortuous historical claims alone are not the basis for Marxists to defend any country in a war. Britain has long had an exploitative relationship toward Argentina. While no longer the world's chief imperialist power, it has long played an important role in an Argentine economy dominated by foreign ownership. The Malvinas Islands symbolically represent this relationship, which is why the Argentine people have always included the question in anti-imperialist outbreaks and rallied behind the military effort of a government that is so despised.

That the general interests of world imperialism was the key issue at stake is indicated by several additional facts. Britain had not really asserted an eternal claim to sovereignty over the islands; it had been negotiating with Argentina for years over a transfer and mineral rights, and had already allowed Argentina to take over many of the provisioning and servicing functions needed by the islanders. The claim that Britain was defending the Falklanders' "right of self-determination" is a smokescreen; on the one hand, colonial settlers have no rights to maintain imperialist rule; on the other, the Falklanders were not permitted self-government under Britain and were in many cases even denied British citizenship.

What compelled Britain to defend so avidly the territory it was previously willing to negotiate away was Argentina's act of seizure. If it allowed the islands to go then its colonial possession of Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, etc. would have been weakened, as would the possessions of all imperialist powers. The "anti-imperialist" rulers also had to declare themselves. Russia displayed a mild and carefully limited tilt toward the Argentine side after Britain launched its counter-invasion. "Non-aligned" Cuba backed "non-aligned" Argentina -- and neither Russia (which imports lots of Argentine grain) nor Cuba had a word of criticism of the bloody anti-communist junta.

Observe also the US's unhysterical opposition to the presence of Soviet ships tailing Britain's South Atlantic fleet (and imagine Reagan's reaction to a Soviet fleet off El Salvador!). All imperialists admired the junta and its willingness to torture in the name of liberty; it had none of the dubious (if fictitious) image of decency which troubles world leaders about more liberal forces of the semi-colonial world. This proves once again that the real conflict dominating world politics is not East versus West but the struggle of the masses against capitalism. The danger of the Malvinas seizure was that Argentina's example would be seen as a victory by neo-colonial peoples everywhere and would be followed by other struggles with social revolutionary possibilities. In sum, Britain's victory meant strengthening imperialism everywhere. Its defeat, no matter what the character of the Argentine junta, would have undermined capitalism's sway.

In addition to its impact on imperialism, the other key factor for Marxists is the war's effect on the proletariat, especially in Argentina and Britain. In Argentina, the illusions of the workers in their own nationalism was strengthened by Galtieri's war. It was essential for Argentine revolutionaries to point out that the bourgeois regime was betraying the anti-imperialist struggle (as the scandals about the military's cowardice and poor provisioning later revealed); the war could only have been won through a revolutionary struggle against imperialism -- seizing British and US owned properties and rousing the masses of the entire continent. The point of the war was not empty islands but the need for imperialism united to crush the oppressed and exploited peoples of the world. Thus only an international struggle against imperialism (that is, capitalism) could answer the attack.

Such a social struggle was of course impossible for Galtieri, and the defeat has deepened the crisis of the military regime. Galtieri was already forced to withdraw his officers aiding the US backed junta in El Salvador. A renewed working-class offensive would create the opportunity to overturn not just the junta but Argentine capitalism and its imperialist yoke.

In Britain, both the war and the victory gave a jingoist boost to the ruling class, which the Thatcher government has been already using as a weapon in the domestic class struggle. The support for Thatcher's war by the Labour Party was especially disgraceful. Party leader Michael Foot denounced the Tory cabinet -- for not doing enough to defend Britain's interests in the South Atlantic. The Labour left led by Tony Benn at first did nothing to oppose sending the British fleet or to stem the chauvinist tide of "national unity." Later the Bennites called for the fleet to be halted (not even recalled: timid pacifism indeed!) and urged handing the matter over to the imperialist-run United Nations. Their assumption throughout was that Britain's cause was just because of the "fascist" nature of the Argentine junta (armed all along by "democratic" Britain and its allies), but they preferred "peaceful" warfare like economic sanctions.

The far-left groups tailing Benn inside the Labour Party did no better than the outright Bennites. The Militant Tendency, which the witchhunting Labour leadership is attempting to expel because of its supposed Trotskyism, did its best to earn its keep as a disguised defender of British imperialism. It stuck up for the "rights" of the Falklanders, it devoted column after column to denouncing the Argentine junta, and it even attacked Thatcher and the current Labour leaders as warmongers. But its solution was urging unions everywhere to boycott Argentine trade (certainly not British!) and "a Labour government pledged to socialist policies"; presumably once Labour was in power the war would then be supportable. Militant conveniently forgot the political fact known to Marxists for over half a century that a Labour government is just as imperialist as the Tories -- in order, in effect, to argue that the labor movement could defend British interests better than the capitalists themselves. For Britain, Militant advocated general elections to achieve its socialist government; but it demanded that the Argentine workers launch a revolution. Parliamentary cretinism at home coupled with "revolutionary defeatism" in the rival country is time-honored Kautskyism.

Socialist Organiser stands only slightly to the left of Militant inside Labour and behaved accordingly. Its April 15 editorial demanded "Withdrawal of the Argentine troops from the Falklands," also backing the Falklanders' "right to decide their own future," which can only mean to remain part of the British empire. Although this position effectively supports Britain's war claims, Socialist Organiser held back from endorsing the war itself. But its solution is the same as Militant's: other people (like the Argentines) have to overthrow their ruling classes; British workers can bring down Thatcher through trade unionism and elections. This national chauvinism is given a proletarian veneer by hiding inside the Labour Party.

The main sponsor of Socialist Organiser is the Workers Socialist League, the pseudo-Trotskyist group recently cobbled together by Alan Thornett and Sean Matgamna. The paper itself opens its pages to the entire left Labour parliamentary swamp. Its "broadness" consists of its ability to dodge responsibility for a particular view. Thus the May 6 issue printed an interview on the war with Member of Parliament Reg Race that was highlighted on the front page; in it Race called for economic pressure against Argentina (by British capitalism!) and a "negotiated settlement," as if that would be any less imperialist than war. All this adds up to opposing Thatcher's militarism while endorsing the "democratic" excuses she uses to justify it. (We note that the WSL has a U.S. affiliate, the Revolutionary Workers League, which correctly stood for Britain's defeat in the war. But the real test of a left-wing tendency in wartime is to oppose the imperialism of one's own ruling class, and in this the "Trotskyist International Liaison Committee," through its British section, abjectly failed.)

In contrast to the left groups that gave backhanded support to Britain's war aims, the Socialist Workers Party and Spartacist League of Britain both attempted to stand firmly against Britain without taking the Argentine side. The failure to recognize the one-sided imperialist character of the war is characteristic of both these tendencies. The SWP issued a powerful condemnation of the Labour left and their pseudo-Marxist tails in Socialist Review of May 20. But it could not account for the war; it saw national pride on both sides but did not see the imperialist cabal backing Thatcher nor the anti-imperialist mass sentiment that Galtieri had to divert. Instead it wrote: "There is no longer a rational, if predatory, cause of dispute. The Falklands are of no great significance. Pure prestige and internal politics are the driving force on both sides."

If there is no rational cause for the war (from the bourgeois point of view), it is remarkable that so many imperialist powers lined up behind Britain from the start. The SWP cannot see the threat to imperialism's world stability because it has always fundamentally considered events in the "third world" irrelevant; "the main enemy is at home," in the SWP's eyes, because the only struggles with real consequences are at home. It believes that imperialism "is no longer central to the survival of capitalism, nor is the export of capital from advanced to backward countries" (Introduction to the special theoretical issue of International Socialism No. 61). With this view the SWP was able to avoid the not-so-hidden form of British chauvinism of Militant and Socialist Organiser, since colonial wars are supposedly unnecessary; but it expresses another. The "third world" peoples are purely objects, if victimized ones, condemned to be mere observers of the serious business of the advanced nations.

Argentina Imperialist?

The Spartacists also call the war absurd: "Indeed what British capitalism expects to gain out of this supposed war of 'imperialist aggrandisement' is a further loss of Argentine markets to the Japanese and a possible debt default" (Spartacist Britain, May 1982). But unable to openly surrender the Leninist analysis of imperialism as easily as does the SWP, they suggest that perhaps Argentina is imperialist too! "Argentina part of the 'Third World'?" asks Workers Vanguard (June 11), going on to salute its "European" standard of living and class structure, overlooking the statistical fact that Britain's per capita GNP is 2.8 times Argentina's, while the U.S.'s is 4.8 times as great. But then comes a second thought, "Argentina is not even a secondary imperialist country like Australia or Canada," which carefully suggests that it might be imperialist of a lower degree. Finally the Spartacists make up their mind: Argentina is one of the "intermediate capitalist states" like "East Europe between the wars, Portugal, Greece or Israel today." We note that Trotsky considered pre-World War II Poland and Czechoslovakia to be imperialist, while Israel and Portugal certainly are so today. (Portugal is not the colonial power it once was, but it still invests heavily in its ex-colonies.)

The Spartacists have always denied the crucial difference for Leninists between oppressed and oppressor countries (see our article Spartacist Chauvinism in Socialist Voice No. 8). When they do make distinctions they tend to favor the advanced: thus they are concerned lest an avalanche of desperate immigrants from the neo-colonial world inundate the "national identity" of the imperialist heartlands (see Workers Vanguard, January 18, 1974). And now, if Argentina is imperialist (albeit third rate) then both sides can be equally damned. The only imperialism the Spartacists recognize nowadays is the West's struggle against the "workers" USSR. As with the SWP, the non-advanced world has no choice but to watch the big boys fight it out.

We note that the British Workers Power group has taken a position on the war that, judging by its press, is free of the national chauvinism so common on the left in the imperialist countries. It stands for Britain's defeat; but its call for the recall of the British fleet without specifying who is to do this could only raise illusions in the Labour Party.

The clearest statement of the Leninist position was made by Trotsky in 1938 in a parallel situation:

I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on the side of 'fascist' Brazil against 'democratic' Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners and robbers! (Writings, 1938-39, page 34)

[Devrim]

The far-left groups tailing Benn inside the Labour Party did no better than the outright Bennites. The Militant Tendency, which the witchhunting Labour leadership is attempting to expel because of its supposed Trotskyism, did its best to earn its keep as a disguised defender of British imperialism. It stuck up for the "rights" of the Falklanders, it devoted column after column to denouncing the Argentine junta, and it even attacked Thatcher and the current Labour leaders as warmongers. But its solution was urging unions everywhere to boycott Argentine trade (certainly not British!) and "a Labour government pledged to socialist policies"; presumably once Labour was in power the war would then be supportable. Militant conveniently forgot the political fact known to Marxists for over half a century that a Labour government is just as imperialist as the Tories -- in order, in effect, to argue that the labor movement could defend British interests better than the capitalists themselves. For Britain, Militant advocated general elections to achieve its socialist government; but it demanded that the Argentine workers launch a revolution. Parliamentary cretinism at home coupled with "revolutionary defeatism" in the rival country is time-honored Kautskyism.

Yes, for them it would have been


The labour movement should be mobilised to force a general election to open the way for the return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad. Victory of a socialist government in Britain would immediately transform the situation in relation to the Falklands. The junta would no longer be able to claim to be fighting British imperialism ... A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines

I am not sure which is more absurd, the idea of a 'socialist' imperialist war, or the idea of a British Labour government 'implementing socialist policies at home and abroad'.

Devrim

[Sasha]

What is the socialist criticism of this conflict? Why did our side oppose it?


look at fucking world map, the malvinas are not excactly located in the english-french channel or for the coast of scotland now do they?
i.e. it was an imperialist colonialist war so leftist anti-imperialist anti-colonialists oposed it, DUH

not to mention it was just an election propaganda excersise for maggie "the *****" tatcher