Once again on Militant and the Malvinas conflict

[BobKKKindle$]

Prove it! And I don't want you purposely "misunderstanding" their position, just so you can score some points. All this bullshit reminds me of the RSL criticizing Trotsky's PMPIt's well-documented that Militant (the Marxists who operated inside the Labour Party, later to become the IMT and the CWI) adopted a neutralist position on the Malvinas conflict. They did not support the British invasion, but once the conflict was underway they refused to take the side of the oppressed nation (Argentina - controlled by the Galtieri dictatorship at the time) and defend the justified seizure of the islands (justified, because they had originally been taken from Argentina through colonial conquest, and control of the islands also gives Britain the right to maintain exclusive control over minerals located on the surrounding seabed) ostensibly on the grounds that the actions of the Argentine government constituted a "military adventure" that would strengthen the rule of the nationalist bourgeoisie. They even admit this here (http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html). This is the equivalent of refusing to support anti-Zionist resistance in Palestine today.


Again, you are criticizing the IMT because a member of the said organization, claimed that the IMT is bigger than the CWIThe point Yehuda is making is that we shouldn't judge the value of a given organization solely on the basis of how many members it has relative to other organizations - we should look at its actions and political orientation. This is why the wavering of Militant during the Malvinas conflict is important.

[Matina]

It's well-documented that Militant (the Marxists who operated inside the Labour Party, later to become the IMT and the CWI) adopted a neutralist position on the Malvinas conflict. They did not support the British invasion, but once the conflict was underway they refused to take the side of the oppressed nation (Argentina - controlled by the Galtieri dictatorship at the time) and defend the justified seizure of the islands (justified, because they had originally been taken from Argentina through colonial conquest, and control of the islands also gives Britain the right to maintain exclusive control over minerals located on the surrounding seabed) ostensibly on the grounds that the actions of the Argentine government constituted a "military adventure" that would strengthen the rule of the nationalist bourgeoisie. They even admit this here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html). This is the equivalent of refusing to support anti-Zionist resistance in Palestine today.


First of all your analogy is shit, because the Argentinian military dictatorship was not even remotely close to Palestine today. Second of all you "misunderstood" their position. I will quote a passage from the position and I'll leave it here.




MilitantWhat position did we take on the war? We opposed both British imperialism and the Argentinean military dictatorship. Both sides were fighting a capitalist war contrary to the interests of the working class.
We opposed the seizure of the Malvinas by Galtieri as a military adventure. If the junta had successfully taken long-term possession of the Malvinas, the dictatorship would have been strengthened for a period, which would have worsened the position of the Argentinean working class. At the same time, we opposed the sending of the military task force, which was to defend the power and prestige of British imperialism. It was predictable that a British victory would strengthen Thatcher and embolden her attacks on the working class at home.
Moreover, we opposed the class collaborationist role of the Labour leaders, who abjectly failed to oppose the war, instantly clearing the way for Thatcher to dispatch the task force. The Militant’s editorial on 9 April was headed ‘No support for the Junta – No support for the Tories’.


Their position is clear. Further attacks on the alleged "centrism" of this position will be considered purposeful "misunderstandings" and I will be ignoring them.

[BobKKKindle$]

First of all your analogy is shit, because the Argentinian military dictatorship was not even remotely close to Palestine today.It's not a poor analogy at all, because the same basic issue is at stake - what positions should Marxists adopt in relation to nations that are faced with an imperialist attack? It would have been ludicrous for Militant to support the British invasion of the Malvinas after the Argentine government had attempted to reclaim them from Britain - keeping in mind that the Islands had been unjustly taken by British colonialists - but the point here is that the position of Militant during the course of the conflict itself was entirely ambiguous. They tried to adopt what they saw as a "safe" position by refusing to support either side, and accused those who adopted a defeatist position (including the SWP) of supporting the Argentine government, but in doing so completely ignored the reality on the ground, and the duty of internationalism. I don't think it would have been right for any Marxist to support the Argentine invasion from the beginning, because it was partly intended to avoid internal unrest and strengthen the rule of the nationalist bourgeoisie, such that it would have been better if the invasion had never taken place (the SWP at the time - "We dismiss the notion that the Argentinian seizure of the Falklands is progressive on anti-colonialist grounds") but once the conflict had started the only way the British imperialists could have been forced to withdraw and acknowledge Argentine sovereignty was if they had suffered a significant military defeat at the hands of the Argentine forces (in the absence of a mass movement against the war within Britain) and it would ultimately have been better for the international proletariat if the islands had been restored to Argentina, regardless of how dictatorial the Argentine government was in the 1980s, and as such, regardless of our reaction to the Argentine invasion, Marxists should have taken supported the Argentine war effort, whilst organizing for revolution within the ranks of the Argentine army.

By the way, Matina, some outstanding discussions where you haven't responded to me: 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hizbulla-resistance-terrorist-t105183/index.html) and 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-troskyists-t100628/index4.html)

[bolchevique]

you ,you don't have the foggiest idea of the facism, we Spanish suffered the facism for 40 years, and it was a criminal until the last moment killing workers in1975,Argetina was the same facist goverment , only mad setarian we'll support Franco or Videla or whatever similar government in any of their crazy facist adventure , maybe sitting confortably in a bar is easy to talk, while thousands of workers were killed and tortured

[BobKKKindle$]

Argetina was the same facist goverment Even if this were the case, this does not justify refusing to adopt a principled revolutionary-defeatist position during a conflict between an imperialist state and an oppressed nation. The Sadaam regime in Iraq displayed many of the features of a fascist regime, including the persecution of revolutionaries, and the banning of independent trade unions, and yet no decent Marxist would ever have considered supporting the Iraq War in 2003 or 1991, even though, in the latter case, Iraq invaded Kuwait - although maybe for you it was different, because, unlike any other Marxist in the history of the 20th century, you've lived under fascism. Let's look at some Trotsky. In Anti-Imperialist Struggle is the Key to Liberation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm), Trotsky argued that even though the government of Brazil was a "semifascist" regime in 1938, and even though England was ostensibly a "democratic" bourgeois state, he would still have taken the side of Brazil in the event of a conflict between the two countries, on the grounds that the defeat of British imperialism at the hands of the Brazilian military would support the development of class consciousness inside Britain and even lead to a revolt against capitalism, and at the same time weaken Britain imperialism on a global scale, encouraging the struggles of other nations living uner imperialist domination, whereas a victory for Britain would strengthen imperialism, and lead to even greater oppression for the Brazilian proletariat, because Britain would impose its own form of fascist dictatorship. Trotsky had the following to say to people like you, who would support imperialism when the imperialist power uses democratic rhetoric to justify its violent acts:

"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!"

It's also worth pointing out that Trotsky's position of support for the Allied war effort during WW2 had nothing to do with the fact that one of the participating imperialist blocs was comprised of fascist powers, whereas the other was pseudo-democratic, and everything to do with his flawed argument that the USSR was a workers state.

[BOZG]

Even if this were the case, this does not justify refusing to adopt a principled revolutionary-defeatist position during a conflict between an imperialist state and an oppressed nation.

But that has always been the heart of the debate. From the perspective of the Militant, Argentina wasn't an oppressed nation but was a semi-imperialist state itself, seeking to extend its influence throughout Latin America.

[BobKKKindle$]

But that has always been the heart of the debate. From the perspective of the Militant, Argentina wasn't an oppressed nation but was a semi-imperialist state itself, seeking to extend its influence throughout Latin America. When I said "even if this were the case" I was referring to the accusation that Argentina was a fascist country at the time of the conflict - being a fascist country is obviously not the same as being an imperialist country because any country is capable of falling under the control of a fascist government regardless of its position in the international economy, and so these are two separate issues. On the issue you outlined, being able to exert influence over other countries in the surrounding region does not make a given country imperialist. For example, Syria has always attempted to influence the internal politics of Lebanon by funding political parties and even carrying out assassinations on anti-Syrian political leaders such as George Hawi in 2005, but this does not make Syria a (semi-) imperialist country, because whether a country is imperialist or not is determined by the features of that country's economy, as well as that country's economic relationships with the rest of the world - we should be looking at indicators such as the dominance of finance capital relative to the production/export of commodities, and the role of monopolies in the economy. On this basis, the position of Argentina as a component of a globally-integrated economic system was qualitatively different from that of Britain, and it was correct to identify Argentina as an oppressed nation. This is the Marxist understanding of imperialism, not a fluffy liberal understanding, which sees imperialism as synonymous with "influence". If you reduce imperialism to "influence", then you could justifiably argue that Rwanda is/was an imperialist country, on the grounds that Rwanda invaded the DRoC in January of this year ostensibly to eliminate Hutu militias.

[Random Precision]

This is what Devrim (I think it was him) posted the last time this was brought up:


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 think this position of the Militant is a perfect example of how when you enter the Labour Party, the Labour Party enters you.

[Matina]

Even if this were the case, this does not justify refusing to adopt a principled revolutionary-defeatist position during a conflict between an imperialist state and an oppressed nation.
This is what I am talking about when I compare the SWP to the RSL and their attitude to the Proletarian Military Policy. This vulgar understanding of Marxism and revolutionary- defeatism is least to say infantile.

I posted this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-defeatism-and-t105201/index.html earlier which I quote in full here.


Misconception of Revolutionary Defeatism
Trotsky pointed out that Lenin in the course of the First World War had laid down the Marxist attitude towards war. However, if the truth is to be told, because the revolutionary movement had been caught by surprise by the betrayal of August 1914, Lenin and the other leading internationalists had tended to pose things in a slightly ultra-left manner. The internationalists defended the ideas of internationalism, class solidarity and raised the question of revolutionary defeatism. They put forward the idea that in war, the defeat of your own ruling class is the lesser evil. Posed in a crude and unqualified way – which is exactly what certain communists or "communists" have been doing for the last 80 years – this policy can be interpreted as support for the foreign bourgeoisie. Many communists have no idea of the circumstances that determined Lenin’s stance in 1914.

The reason why Lenin expressed himself in such a way was to draw a clear line between the revolutionary vanguard and the social patriotic traitors of the Second International. The betrayal of the leaders of the Second International was entirely unexpected – even by Lenin and Trotsky. It caused tremendous disorientation and confusion. For this reason, Lenin tended to bend the stick in one direction. However, his emphatic policy of revolutionary defeatism was aimed at the cadres of the International, and not the broad masses. Revolutionary defeatism was not the means whereby the working class would be won to the revolutionary party. Far from it. In 1917 the masses in Russia were won over with the slogans of peace, bread and land, and "All Power to the Soviets". Revolutionary defeatism could never have won the masses to the programme and banner of the revolution. That is why Lenin changed his views on slogans regarding the war when he returned to Russia in the Spring of 1917. He adapted his slogans to concrete circumstances. That is what ensured the success of the Bolshevik Party.

[Random Precision]

Trotsky pointed out that Lenin in the course of the First World War had laid down the Marxist attitude towards war. However, if the truth is to be told, because the revolutionary movement had been caught by surprise by the betrayal of August 1914, Lenin and the other leading internationalists had tended to pose things in a slightly ultra-left manner.

I don't see what is ultra-left about saying that the working class should not choose sides in an inter-imperialist conflict. Are you trying to say that Lenin and Trotsky were wrong in telling the workers not to choose sides?


The internationalists defended the ideas of internationalism, class solidarity and raised the question of revolutionary defeatism. They put forward the idea that in war, the defeat of your own ruling class is the lesser evil. Posed in a crude and unqualified way – which is exactly what certain communists or "communists" have been doing for the last 80 years – this policy can be interpreted as support for the foreign bourgeoisie.

No one in this thread has interpreted revolutionary defeatism that way. As the Trotsky quote in Bob's post made clear, when it comes to a conflict between an imperialist and oppressed nation revolutionaries on both sides should fight for the victory of the oppressed nation, which gives the revolutionary struggle in both nations a significant impulse.


However, his emphatic policy of revolutionary defeatism was aimed at the cadres of the International, and not the broad masses. Revolutionary defeatism was not the means whereby the working class would be won to the revolutionary party. Far from it. In 1917 the masses in Russia were won over with the slogans of peace, bread and land, and "All Power to the Soviets". Revolutionary defeatism could never have won the masses to the programme and banner of the revolution. That is why Lenin changed his views on slogans regarding the war when he returned to Russia in the Spring of 1917. He adapted his slogans to concrete circumstances. That is what ensured the success of the Bolshevik Party.

The call to remove Russia from the war was completely consistent with revolutionary defeatism. You wish for the defeat of all ruling classes, and try to turn the imperialist war into a civil war of the exploited against their own ruling classes.

[Matina]

I don't see what is ultra-left about saying that the working class should not choose sides in an inter-imperialist conflict. Are you trying to say that Lenin and Trotsky were wrong in telling the workers not to choose sides?

The ultra-left part of Lenin's analysis is that revolutionary defeatism, in an imperialist war, can be interpreted as support of the other imperialist country, rather than your 'own'.


No one in this thread has interpreted revolutionary defeatism that way. As the Trotsky quote in Bob's post made clear, when it comes to a conflict between an imperialist and oppressed nation revolutionaries on both sides should fight for the victory of the oppressed nation, which gives the revolutionary struggle in both nations a significant impulse.


Yes if Argentina won, then their dictatorship which killed and tortured workers, repressed movements etc, would be very weakened :rolleyes:


The call to remove Russia from the war was completely consistent with revolutionary defeatism. You wish for the defeat of all ruling classes, and try to turn the imperialist war into a civil war of the exploited against their own ruling classes.


No its not, peace is a pacifist call. Revolutionary defeatism is when you wish for the defeat of your 'own' imperialist nation. Vulgar, vulgar , vulgar understanding.

[BobKKKindle$]

The ultra-left part of Lenin's analysis is that revolutionary defeatism, in an imperialist war, can be interpreted as support of the other imperialist country, rather than your 'own'. Lenin's position was simple, and you're trying to twist it in order to justify the centrism of the IMT. Lenin's argued that the most advantageous outcome of the war was military defeat for Tsarism, because this would provoke proletarian resistance, and allow revolutionaries to transform the war into a civil war. It is obvious that once the Bolsheviks had taken power, and even when the proletariat had taken the first steps towards the abolition of the bourgeois state by creating Soviets, there was no longer a reason to adopt this position, because the proletariat had either seized power or was on the verge of doing so. In any case, as RP already pointed out, there's no reason to assume that calling for withdrawal from the war is incompatible with revolutionary defeatism. The Malvinas Conflict was a war between an oppressed nation, Argentina, and an imperialist state, Britain, and it was taking place at the beginning of a long period of working class disorientation and retreat, and so it was even more important for British revolutionaries to call for the defeat of the British task force that had been dispatched to reclaim the islands from Argentina. I don't think the SWP gave support to Argentina during the conflict, at least not in the sense that you seem to understand the concept of support - we didn't exhibit any political solidarity with the Argentine regime, in the same way that we don't show political solidarity with Hamas or Hezbollah, and we didn't view the original seizure of the islands as justified on anti-colonial grounds because the seizure had been carried out with the aim of strengthening the government and the nationalist sentiments of the Argentine working class. When revolutionaries talk about giving support to a side in a conflict involving an oppressed nation and an imperialist power, we simply mean that we would prefer, in the words of Hal Draper "the military victory of one side in an armed struggle and the military defeat of the opposing side" - and it should be quite obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense that defeat for one side and victory for the other are two sides of the same coin, with each necessitating the other. It would be nonsensical to call for the defeat of the British state, and the withdrawal of the task force, without also supporting victory for the Argentine government, however much we might oppose the latter as a bourgeois state apparatus.


Yes if Argentina won, then their dictatorship which killed and tortured workers, repressed movements etc, would be very weakenedIt would be stupid to suggest that the victory of the Argentine government would have immediately and directly led to a proletarian revolution, but it is certainly correct to say that Thatcher was able to use the conflict as a means of rallying the working class behind her reactionary government and proving her credentials as an effective supporter of Britain's imperialist interests, and so in that respect it would definitely have been better for the international working class if Britain had suffered a defeat. The argument you're putting forward - that a particularly vicious bourgeois state apparatus being in power in an oppressed nation justifies adopting a centrist position during a conflict - could also be used to defend not supporting the Iraqi resistance, or the armed forces of the Iraqi state during the Gulf war, on the grounds that the coalition forces represented "democratic" governments.

Please read the Trotsky text linked in my previous post.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes if Argentina won, then their dictatorship which killed and tortured workers, repressed movements etc, would be very weakened :rolleyes:

Is the implication, then, that we should oppose imperialist attacks only if the country being attacked is 'democratic' and doesn't oppress workers?

[Invader Zim]

Is the implication, then, that we should oppose imperialist attacks only if the country being attacked is 'democratic' and doesn't oppress workers?

Well, as, in this case, the Argentinian Junta was the aggressor with expansionist pretentions, that seems a rather mute question.