British trotskyism at it's finest

[A.J.]

Check this out...


.......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. [10] 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 socialist government would make a class appeal to the Argentinean workers. 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. First, a socialist government would carry through the democratisation of the British armed forces, introducing trade union rights and the election of officers. Working class interests cannot be defended under the direction of an authoritarian, officer caste, which is tied to the capitalist class by education, income and family and class loyalties. The use of force against the Junta, however, would be combined with a class appeal to the workers in uniform. British capitalism will probably defeat the Junta, but only through a bloody battle and at an enormous cost in lives. Using socialist methods, a Labour government could rapidly defeat the dictatorship, which was already facing a threat from the Argentinean working class when Galtieri embarked on his diversionary battle with British imperialism.
A Labour government would give support to a struggle to overturn the Junta and end the rule of capitalism in Argentina. A socialist government in Britain would make it clear that, while defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders, it entirely repudiated the neo-imperialist interests and aims of British capitalism. It would support the expropriation of British banks and businesses in Argentina, along with the nationalisation of Argentinean big business and finance capital.

A Labour government would propose a Socialist Federation of Britain and Argentina, including the Falkland Islands. Under capitalism, the two countries have been linked to a considerable extent by investment and trade. A Socialist Federation, which would have world-wide ramifications, would end neo-colonial exploitation and open up planned development of the economies, which would have enormous advantages for the workers of Britain, Argentina, and the Falklands. [11]

http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html

Now I don't think I have to explain how the above position is objectively pro-imperialist. A small child could work that out.
The real classic for me however was the " return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad " :laugh:

Do these clowns even deny their just a bunch of social democrats?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Now I don't think I have to explain how the above position is objectively pro-imperialist. A small child could work that out.

The real classic for me however was the " return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad " :laugh:

Third time in as many weeks - another attempt to troll on this issue. Selective quoting in order to throw sh*t - nothing more and nothing less. If you want to get the response of CWI members go search back through the archives.

[vyborg]

The critic can be easily turned upside down: you were pro-Argentinian, as Argentina was ruled by a fascist junta you were in favour of fascism.

[Devrim]

Third time in as many weeks - another attempt to troll on this issue. Selective quoting in order to throw sh*t - nothing more and nothing less. If you want to get the response of CWI members go search back through the archives.

Actually I was living in England at the time in a Militant stronghold, and compared to the line I heard on the ground this was quite subtle. Most Militant members that I met were "supporting our boys".

Devrim

[A.J.]

Third time in as many weeks - another attempt to troll on this issue. Selective quoting in order to throw sh*t - nothing more and nothing less.

Surely all quoting is by definition "selective"?

Anyway, it's a tad rich for a trotskyite to accuse someone else of chucking excrement.


If you want to get the response of CWI members go search back through the archives.

Nah....I'm far too lazy for that.
So why don't you try and refute my claim in this thread, here and now, that the so-called "militant tendency" was essentially social democratic(?)

[vyborg]

Actually I was living in England at the time in a Militant stronghold, and compared to the line I heard on the ground this was quite subtle. Most Militant members that I met were "supporting our boys".

Devrim

Even more than that, most of the Militant members were secretely detached as soldiers to the Falklands!

[A.J.]

The critic can be easily turned upside down: you were pro-Argentinian, as Argentina was ruled by a fascist junta you were in favour of fascism.

Argentina wasn't imperialist however.

Lesser of two evils and all that jazz.

'mon the Argies! :D

[Jolly Red Giant]

So why don't you try and refute my claim in this thread, here and now, that the so-called "militant tendency" was essentially social democratic(?)
Because it has been done on numerous occasions in the past - including by me and some others a few short weeks ago.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Actually I was living in England at the time in a Militant stronghold, and compared to the line I heard on the ground this was quite subtle. Most Militant members that I met were "supporting our boys".

I think you are just attampting to stir it a little here Devrim.

[vyborg]

Argentina wasn't imperialist however.

Lesser of two evils and all that jazz.

'mon the Argies! :D

Lesser of two evils support a fascist junta?
And why we have to support uno of the two in the first place? We fight them both, on the contrary.

In the passage quoted there is not a single inch of support for british imperialism. It is quite clear: a workers government in UK would propose a different agreement for the Falkland.

Anyway, has any of you smart guy asked to the people of the Falkland if they were so happy to finish under a fascist junta ruled country?

[Wanted Man]

The critic can be easily turned upside down: you were pro-Argentinian, as Argentina was ruled by a fascist junta you were in favour of fascism.

Absolutely. When some socialists come up with silly concepts like "revolutionary defeatism" and all that jazz, real socialists insist on supporting their own country. Just like that Lenin guy, who demanded that Russia should continue fighting the Germans and bring them socialism.

Oh, wait.


It is quite clear: a workers government in UK would propose a different agreement for the Falkland.

Yes. You think that if Labour are elected into parliament, they will implement "socialist policies", therefore the UK is socialist and a workers' government, and the war can no longer be imperialist. That is where you fail.

[S.Artesian]

I don't know who Armani Hammer is, and I don't know that the Socialist Party represents the "finest," or any part of British Trotskyism, but let's look at another selection from that same article and see if that "deselects" the quoting:

"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’.
"Workers can give no support whatsoever to the lunatic adventure now being prepared by the Thatcher government…" it declared. "The Labour Party and the trade union movement could stop Thatcher dead in her tracks. The labour movement must declare that it has no confidence whatsoever in the policies or methods of the British government…
"Labour must demand not just the resignation of Defence Minister Nott, but the entire Tory government… Labour must demand a general election in order that a Labour government can support and encourage workers’ opposition in Argentina".
The pages of Militant during the conflict make clear our opposition to the capitalist war over the Falklands/Malvinas. (See also Peter Taaffe: The Rise of Militant, Chapter 20) Some of our critics, however, claimed at the time, and probably continue to claim, that we did not oppose the war. According to such ultra-lefts, only those who called for the defeat of the British task force and victory for Argentina really opposed the war. Their approach, in our opinion, is a ludicrous caricature of a Marxist policy on war; an approach that is guaranteed to cut its proponents off from even the most politically conscious workers.
Our strategy and tactics on the Falklands/Malvinas war, and our answer to ultra-left critics, were explained in an article by Lynn Walsh, Falklands war: what lessons for the labour movement?, published in Militant International Review (Issue 22, June 1982), as the task force sailed towards the South Atlantic. We believe that the programmatic and theoretical issues raised at that time remain important issues for Marxists today.
This online version is the original article in full. The version published in Socialism Today, Issue No.108, April 2007, has been slightly shortened for reasons of space. Some explanatory footnotes and subheadings have been added to the original.

WAR IS RAGING in the South Atlantic. By the time this journal appears, the outcome of the conflict will probably be decided. Most likely, the Junta’s forces will suffer a defeat, given the superior military and economic resources of British imperialism. This would open up a new revolutionary crisis in Argentina, which could trigger movements of the working class through the crisis-ridden states of Latin America. [1] But whether or not the military conflict is as yet resolved, the war has important lessons for the labour movement. What were the real causes of the war? All the political, economic and class forces must be analysed concretely. And what policy and tactics should Marxists adopt in opposition to capitalist war? In the next period of intensified class conflict and national antagonisms this, even after the Falklands war, will remain a vital question for the labour movement."


This is the language of equivocation. This is the language that says "the bourgeoisie have no right to extra-territoriality, but we, socialists, do have that right based on our moral and material superiority to the opponent to the bourgeoisie." This is nothing but sentimentality designed to mask capitulation to imperial arrogance.



The Socialist Party opposes the "seizure" of the Malvinas on the basis that it would strengthen the Galtieri regime.


But the issue for the Socialist Party of Britain and the working class of Britain is not what strengthens then Galtieri regime, but what weakens British capitalism. Any equivocation on issues regarding the remnants of EMPIRE strengthens British capitalism, reinforces "patriotism" in the British working class and actually make impossible solidarity with the workers of Argentina.


The authors of the article do not properly assess Britain's historical role in Argentina, it's historical domination of Argentina's banks, its railroads, etc.


The obligation of the Marxists in Britain is to NOT support any policy of its bourgeois government, whether that government be dressed in its Tory or its Labor colors. Marx said that "the fundamental principle of our party [is] not a farthing to this government." "This government" includes pseudo-socialists who continue the policies and remnants of policies of empire, even in, especially in the name, of "democratic," "socialist" obligations. What are these terms, democratic/socialist, in this context but the modern equivalents of the "civilizing" "responsibility" used by imperialism throughout its history to justify oppression and exploitation?



Galtieri and the military regime were enemies of the workers? No shit. The workers of Argentina knew that far better than the Socialist Party. Workers of Argentina have the task of fashioning their opposition to Galtieri.



The "extra-territoriality" of the Malvinas is immaterial. If the Galtieri government seized British property in Argentina; expropriated British corporations; took over British banks in Buenos Aires, would Marxists oppose that as "strengthening fascism"? Of course not. There is no material difference between those type of actions and the attempted seizure of the Malvinas.


The obligation of Marxists is to oppose any and every remnant of empire. The obligation of British Marxists is to oppose any and every claim of the British bourgeoisie to empire, without qualification, without equivocation, without hand-wringing over the nature of other governments involved in a conflict with that pretense to empire.

[vyborg]

Absolutely. When some socialists come up with silly concepts like "revolutionary defeatism" and all that jazz, real socialists insist on supporting their own country. Just like that Lenin guy, who demanded that Russia should continue fighting the Germans and bring them socialism.

So the british soldiers were invading Buenos Aires? I lost this passage. I thought they were dispached to Falklands that was not a part of Argentina whatsoever neither its people wanted to.



Yes. You think that if Labour are elected into parliament, they will implement "socialist policies", therefore the UK is socialist and a workers' government, and the war can no longer be imperialist. That is where you fail.

Where I wrote that a socialist government would have waged a war in the first place??

[Wanted Man]

So the british soldiers were invading Buenos Aires? I lost this passage. I thought they were dispached to Falklands that was not a part of Argentina whatsoever neither its people wanted to.

How is that relevant? You're now justifying the British role in the war with the same arguments as used by bourgeois defenders of imperialist wars: "the people" need to be liberated by our boys, the other country started it, they don't have a right to our country's territory, etc.



Where I wrote that a socialist government would have waged a war in the first place??

You didn't, but that's not the point.

[A.J.]

Lesser of two evils support a fascist junta?
And why we have to support uno of the two in the first place? We fight them both, on the contrary.

And how are you going to "fight both" simultaneously?
Start a guearilla war? acts of individual terrorism?

As a National of imperialist Britain I would have taken a defeatist position with regard to the Malvines conflict.

If I were Argentine, on the other hand, I would have signed up for the armed forces(if I hadn't already been conscripted)


In the passage quoted there is not a single inch of support for british imperialism.

The article explicitly states that "the militant" ( :laugh: ) wanted to see the election of a Labour government. Now, given that the British Labour Party has long and illustrious history of pro-imperialism and war-mongering I don't think a Lab govt would have responded any differently to the invasion of the Falklands than the tories would have(although granted it may not have happened in the first place.) As I said an objectively pro-imperialist position.



It is quite clear: a workers government in UK would propose a different agreement for the Falkland.

If by "workers government" you mean a pro-imperialist social democratic govt, as advocated by the so-called "militant tendency", than I disagreee with your statement here.



Anyway, has any of you smart guy asked to the people of the Falkland if they were so happy to finish under a fascist junta ruled country?

I couldn't give a fuck about the settler-colonist population of the Falklands. They're Comprador. Enemies not allies in the anti-imperialist struggle.


Armani and out :che:

[vyborg]

How is that relevant? You're now justifying the British role in the war with the same arguments as used by bourgeois defenders of imperialist wars: "the people" need to be liberated by our boys, the other country started it, they don't have a right to our country's territory, etc.

People of the Falkland didnt wanted to live under a fascist junta. How do you dare to tell them: you must because the defeat of british imperialism will help us? This is ridicolous. and completely useless, as well explained in the article. There are other ways to fight against UK imperialism.

[vyborg]

And how are you going to "fight both" simultaneously?
Start a guearilla war? acts of individual terrorism?

How about class struggle in UK?


If I were Argentine, on the other hand, I would have signed up for the armed forces(if I hadn't already been conscripted)

Yes, very wise, to help a government that had murdered tens of thousands of workers and student, to become a producer of desaparecidos...what a great idea...


I couldn't give a fuck about the settler-colonist population of the Falklands. They're Comprador. Enemies not allies in the anti-imperialist struggle.

There is a topic that deals with who these people are. It goes without saying that this position is perfectly in line with the propaganda of the fascist junta of the time, so, using the logic of this guy, it is "objectively" a fascist position

[Jolly Red Giant]

vyborg - you are better off not entertaining trolling of this type - this issue was answered on numerous occasions over the past near 30 years. Every now and again some idiot who is completely lacking any understanding of marxism thinks he/she has found the perfect issue with which to beat the militant tendency and they inevitably end up looking like the idiots they actually are.



If I were Argentine, on the other hand, I would have signed up for the armed forces(if I hadn't already been conscripted)
Case in point - this idiot has made it clear that he would volunteer to fight for a fascist junta engaged in a mad military adventure to invade a couple of islands in the south Atlantic - a move designed to stave off the collapse of the miltary regime at precisely the time that the masses in Argentina were moving decisively against the junta.

The reality is that nothing more needs to be said to this troll. The hole is so deep he would need to piggyback on the top of a saturn five rocket to get himself out of it.

[Ismail]

"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!" (Trotsky. Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm),1938.)

Thanks to Kléber for originally introducing me to the quote.

[Tower of Bebel]

Check this out...
.......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. [10] 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 socialist government would make a class appeal to the Argentinean workers. 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. First, a socialist government would carry through the democratisation of the British armed forces, introducing trade union rights and the election of officers. Working class interests cannot be defended under the direction of an authoritarian, officer caste, which is tied to the capitalist class by education, income and family and class loyalties. The use of force against the Junta, however, would be combined with a class appeal to the workers in uniform. British capitalism will probably defeat the Junta, but only through a bloody battle and at an enormous cost in lives. Using socialist methods, a Labour government could rapidly defeat the dictatorship, which was already facing a threat from the Argentinean working class when Galtieri embarked on his diversionary battle with British imperialism.
A Labour government would give support to a struggle to overturn the Junta and end the rule of capitalism in Argentina. A socialist government in Britain would make it clear that, while defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders, it entirely repudiated the neo-imperialist interests and aims of British capitalism. It would support the expropriation of British banks and businesses in Argentina, along with the nationalisation of Argentinean big business and finance capital.

A Labour government would propose a Socialist Federation of Britain and Argentina, including the Falkland Islands. Under capitalism, the two countries have been linked to a considerable extent by investment and trade. A Socialist Federation, which would have world-wide ramifications, would end neo-colonial exploitation and open up planned development of the economies, which would have enormous advantages for the workers of Britain, Argentina, and the Falklands. [11]

http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html

Now I don't think I have to explain how the above position is objectively pro-imperialist. A small child could work that out.
The real classic for me however was the " return of a Labour government to implement socialist policies at home and abroad " :laugh:

Do these clowns even deny their just a bunch of social democrats?

Notwithstanding the sectarian attitude of our comrade here - in this context it is actually Trotskyism almost at its worst -, and dispite the fact that I think that this piece is a relative improvement over those who uncritically support(ed) either side of the conflict, I still don't approve of this phraseology. It has some bourgeois features ("the return of a Labour government"? - with a big L?). In his critique of the Gotha programme Marx started of by writing: "[...] a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning". It still retains some truth.

[vyborg]

vyborg - you are better off not entertaining trolling of this type - this issue was answered on numerous occasions over the past near 30 years. Every now and again some idiot who is completely lacking any understanding of marxism thinks he/she has found the perfect issue with which to beat the militant tendency and they inevitably end up looking like the idiots they actually are.


Case in point - this idiot has made it clear that he would volunteer to fight for a fascist junta engaged in a mad military adventure to invade a couple of islands in the south Atlantic - a move designed to stave off the collapse of the miltary regime at precisely the time that the masses in Argentina were moving decisively against the junta.

The reality is that nothing more needs to be said to this troll. The hole is so deep he would need to piggyback on the top of a saturn five rocket to get himself out of it.


The problem is that many, maybe most South American trotskyst organization have more or less the same position (for example, look at the debate between Woods and Altamira), so, troll apart, the topic needs explanation

[vyborg]

"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...." (Trotsky. Anti-Imperialist Struggle is Key to Liberation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm),1938.).

This quotation is completely useless. UK defeated the junta. Did the british "put another fascist" in Buenos Aires as the analogy would impose? No they didnt. So please, come back to the point.

[Ismail]

This quotation is completely useless. UK defeated the junta. Did the british "put another fascist" in Buenos Aires as the analogy would impose? No they didnt. So please, come back to the point.I was unaware the British won a total victory over Argentina and stormed Buenos Aires. In any case, the point was that a British victory over Brazil would end in yet another rightist leader who would oppress the workers. The point is to defend against imperialism, and to capitalize on nationalist sentiment to turn it into a firmly anti-imperialist one.

[S.Artesian]

This quotation is completely useless. UK defeated the junta. Did the british "put another fascist" in Buenos Aires as the analogy would impose? No they didnt. So please, come back to the point.

The point is: which constitutes the bigger blow to capitalism, international capitalism-- the defeat of the British bourgeoisie or the defeat of the Argentine Junta? Which embodies a bigger step forward for the working class? Working class opposition to Thatcher, all vestiges of empire, to the British claims to any additional territory, working class defeatism by the British working class OR opposition to the junta's actions because the junta is fascist, the junta is trying to divert attention away from its failures, the junta is engaging in a military adventure it cannot win?

Clearly the former, the defeat of the British bourgeoisie, defeatism on the part of the British workers is not just a bigger step forward, but perhaps the biggest step forward of a working class in an advanced country in decades.

Had Thatcher faced defeat in the field, had she faced unequivocal opposition to this nostalgia for empire, the British workers might have been better able to defend themselves from the ensuing years of Thatcher-Major.

In any case, opposition to the British control of the Malvinas is critical for what it would mean for the class consciousness of the British proletariat.

[Jolly Red Giant]

the topic needs explanation
and has been ad infinitum


I was unaware the British won a total victory over Argentina and stormed Buenos Aires. In any case, the point was that a British victory over Brazil would end in yet another rightist leader who would oppress the workers. The point is to defend against imperialism, and to capitalize on nationalist sentiment to turn it into a firmly anti-imperialist one.
First point - Trotsky wrote his article in 1938 when Brazil was still largely unindustrialised and rural based - it bares no relation to Argentina in the 1980's which was then highly industrialised with a largely urbanised working class and attempting to play the role of a regional imperialist power.

If you want to use quotes from Trotsky you must compare like with like - time does not stand still and Marxism is not set in stone for eternity.


The point is: which constitutes the bigger blow to capitalism, international capitalism-- the defeat of the British bourgeoisie or the defeat of the Argentine Junta?
I would suggest that the biggest blow to capitalism would be the defeat of both which is what the Militant Tendency were arguing needed to happen and outlined how it could be achieved.


Clearly the former, the defeat of the British bourgeoisie, defeatism on the part of the British workers is not just a bigger step forward, but perhaps the biggest step forward of a working class in an advanced country in decades.
Clearly there are still many on the left that are incapable of using Marxism to analyse a situation and instead fall back on old dogma - British Imperialism must be opposed and a fascist junta in Argentina with its own imperialist ambitions, that is on its knees, must be supported, because it is fighting British Imperialism. The only answer to come out of the far left was 'back the Argies'.

There was another problem with Argentina actually winning the Falklands War - and it is something that has been systematically ignored by those on the far left who supported the junta in the war - it would have enormously re-inforced the fascist junta in Argentina, it would have led to an increase in the attacks on the Argentinian working class, it would have strengthened other right-wing forces across Latin American and it would have emboldened the Argentinian junta who likely would have engage in further imperialist adventures that could well have led to further wars and a carnival of reaction for the masses in Latin America.


Had Thatcher faced defeat in the field, had she faced unequivocal opposition to this nostalgia for empire, the British workers might have been better able to defend themselves from the ensuing years of Thatcher-Major.
Thatcher was able to use the Falklands War to solidify her position for three reasons - 1. the right wing leadership of the LP supported the war - 2. the left in the LP (and it was substantial) adopted a pacifist position towards the war - and 3. most of the far left adopted a mad 'support Argentina to the hilt' attitude that allowed Thatcher to launch an ideological offensive against the ideas of socialism on the basis that it was supporting a fascist dictatorship.

To start with a military defeat for Thatcher was never on the cards - not on the basis of supporting the junta or adopting a pacifist position of withdraw the fleet - and even if it had occurred it is likely that it would not have fundementally changed what happened in the following years. The neo-liberal campaign was not based solely on Thatcher remaining in power. The defeat of british Imperialism would not fundementally ahve altered the political direction of the LP at the time either - the right in the LP would have continued Thatchers privitisation programme and anti-union attacks. Neither was it dependent on winning the Falklands War (it did assist Thatcher in winning the 1983 election - but the primary reason for her victory was the ineptitude of the LP leadership and their attenpt to appeal to middle England). The neo-liberal offensive was based on control of the media, ideologically attacking socialism, privatising public services, driving the LP to the right etc etc etc. A military defeat for Thatcher might have led to her removal but would not have fundementally altered the balance of class forces at the time or the consciousness of the working class.


In any case, opposition to the British control of the Malvinas is critical for what it would mean for the class consciousness of the British proletariat.
another daft idea - the class consciousness of the British working class is determined by opposition to British control of a couple of islands in the South Atlantic - a couple of islands populated by people who regarded themselves as British and hadn't seen an Argentinian set foot on them for 150 years (except for one guy who married an islander). It wasn't then and it isn't now - class consciousness does not work like that.

[S.Artesian]

Class consciousness does work by opposing every military venture of your own bourgeoisie, and not pretending that a so-called labor government could or would pursue a "revolutionary war" or a "revolutionary defense" of the Malvinas. No such revolutionary war or defense can exist when the government is a government representing the material interests of the bourgeoisie, which a labor government does represent.


No proletarian state would have maintained its claim on the Malvinas, given the history of its attachment to Britain, but would have immediately acknowledged Argentina's claims, would have recalled the military force immediately, and demonstrated to the workers of Argentina, where the finance and transportation sectors of the economy had long been dominated by the British, that it was breaking irrevocably and completely with the legacy of British imperialism.

That the Galtieri regime was a military junta of the most brutal sort does not alter the burden on and the obligation of socialists. If the current Kirchner-Fernandez government, embattled as it is by the right which finds its equivocation and residual Peronism unacceptable, undertakes a similar adventure, what would be different? And what would be different in Brown's response? Nothing.

Argentinian workers are more than capable of calling for the defeat of the government's military adventures. For a British socialist to call for defeat on both sides ignores the responsibility to locate the class enemy at home.

To call for defeat on both sides from Britain is not at all unlike calling for defeat on both sides when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 and the mercenary coalition led by the US responded militarily. After all, wasn't Saddam just as much an enemy of the workers as Bush and Major?

Certainly he was. There is just this little matter of the history of Britain in Iraq; the history of the creation of Kuwait.

I know what we advocated here in the US. Defeat of the US led coalition.

What would you advocate then, what did you advocate then? Plagues on both houses? A "true socialist government" to wage "revolutionary warfare" against Iraq?

[Devrim]

Actually I was living in England at the time in a Militant stronghold, and compared to the line I heard on the ground this was quite subtle. Most Militant members that I met were "supporting our boys".I think you are just attampting to stir it a little here Devrim.

Perhaps a little. I do think that the Militants line was pro-British though, and I don't think that it has been, as you put it, "answered on numerous occasions over the past near 30 years". I think on the contary, it has been swept under the carpet and denied reapeatedly, just as the thing about the Militant threatening to grass people up after the Poll Tax riots, which millions of people heard on TV have been.

My impression of the Militant in those years was that beyond people learning a few mantras about 'nationalising the top 200 monopolies', ther must have been very little real political discussion within the organisation. I met people in the Militant, I was living in a Liverpool overspill town at the time, and they were quite dominant on the left there, who didn't really know what there own politics were. The difference between reading the Militants theoretical review, and talking to some of the members really shocked me.

The Militant at the time was pretty big, much bigger than any of the leftist parties today, about 8,000 if I remember correctly, and much of that growth came pretty rapidly. There is a problem though with integrating members who don't understand your politics, in that you end up as an organisation that is run by the leadership giving the line to the mass of the members, and that as we know is not a good way for any organisation that calls itself socialist to work.

In my opinion, the Militant pandered to some of the most reactionary right-wing prejudices in British labourism, and I say British because they often were very national prejudices. Their position on Northern Ireland would be another. Added to this the policy on social issues like homosexuality, and the constant support for the labour Party, which only a few years earlier had been in government, and imposing wage restraints, and I think that it is quite evident that the Militant tailored its polices in order not to offend traditional Labourism. I think the fact that it did was more down to their organisational success than their political ideas.


The article explicitly states that "the militant" ( :laugh: ) wanted to see the election of a Labour government. Now, given that the British Labour Party has long and illustrious history of pro-imperialism and war-mongering I don't think a Lab govt would have responded any differently to the invasion of the Falklands than the tories would have(although granted it may not have happened in the first place.) As I said an objectively pro-imperialist position.

This is basically true. The Labour party has always been a defender of Britain's imperial interests. The fact that the Militant hadn't realised that at the time, and were still inside it doesn't mean that it wasn't true. The class nature of the Labour Party in no way changed when the Militant members were being witch-hunted out.


The point is: which constitutes the bigger blow to capitalism, international capitalism-- the defeat of the British bourgeoisie or the defeat of the Argentine Junta? Which embodies a bigger step forward for the working class? Working class opposition to Thatcher, all vestiges of empire, to the British claims to any additional territory, working class defeatism by the British working class OR opposition to the junta's actions because the junta is fascist, the junta is trying to divert attention away from its failures, the junta is engaging in a military adventure it cannot win?

Clearly the former, the defeat of the British bourgeoisie, defeatism on the part of the British workers is not just a bigger step forward, but perhaps the biggest step forward of a working class in an advanced country in decades.

Neither, it just changes the balance of imperialist power.


There was another problem with Argentina actually winning the Falklands War - and it is something that has been systematically ignored by those on the far left who supported the junta in the war - it would have enormously re-inforced the fascist junta in Argentina, it would have led to an increase in the attacks on the Argentinian working class, it would have strengthened other right-wing forces across Latin American and it would have emboldened the Argentinian junta who likely would have engage in further imperialist adventures that could well have led to further wars and a carnival of reaction for the masses in Latin America.

This is certainly true. A defeat for Britain might have dramatically changed the situation of the working class. It is quite possible that the Conservative government wouldn't have been re-elected, and even if it had might not have felt strong enough to take on the miners, remembering that only the previous year they had attempted too and backed down.

However, as JRG points out, this would have had a counter balance in Latin America. Socialists must always take an internationalist perspective.


To start with a military defeat for Thatcher was never on the cards

I think this is actually wrong and it came out later that it was a much more touch and go thing than it seemed at the time.


I would suggest that the biggest blow to capitalism would be the defeat of both which is what the Militant Tendency were arguing needed to happen and outlined how it could be achieved.

I think that that was mainly sloganering. We all knew it wasn't on the cards, unfortunately.


3. most of the far left adopted a mad 'support Argentina to the hilt'

I think that the Militant exaggerated this, but certainly those sort of positions existed. The RCP would be a prime example. Personally, I have never really understood this line. It can be hard enough sometimes in times of war arguing with workers that their own country is wrong. I don't understand why leftists want to argue for an even more difficult, mostly because of its absurdity, of trying to get workers to support the other side.



If I were Argentine, on the other hand, I would have signed up for the armed forces(if I hadn't already been conscripted)Case in point - this idiot has made it clear that he would volunteer to fight for a fascist junta engaged in a mad military adventure to invade a couple of islands in the south Atlantic.

This is another good example of it. I think the argument that workers shouldn't support their own state, and that the bosses and workers have different class interests is not only correct, but also one that you can convince people of. The idea that you should try to get people to support viscous anti-working class regimes is absurd. On the other hand if were arguing this line in Argentina, it would have been worse than absurd. It would have been social-patriotism.

Devrim

[Jolly Red Giant]

No such revolutionary war or defense can exist when the government is a government representing the material interests of the bourgeoisie, which a labor government does represent.
You are again ignoring the second part of the LP stuff - a Labour government elected on a socialist programme. The LP of 1982 was for significantly different character than the LP of today - it had a vibrant left-wing and a significant base of trade union activists. The potential for pushing the LP further to the left through the adoption of the position of the Militant Tendency could have fundementally altered the balance of class forces at the time. Instead the majority of the left in the LP adopted Benn's pacifist approach.



No proletarian state would have maintained its claim on the Malvinas,
Correct


but would have immediately acknowledged Argentina's claims,
Absolutely incorrect - there is no way any proletarian state would have acknowledged the imperialist claims of a fascist junta in Argentina. A proletarian state would have supported the rights of the inhabitants of the islands to determine their own faith and would have argued for a socialist Falklands in free and voluntary federation with a socialist Argentina.


would have recalled the military force immediately,
And facilitated the imperialist ambitions of the fascist junta - not likely. A proletarian state would have removed the officer corps from the force, placed it under democratic control of the ranks and used it, if necessary, to further the interests of the working class in the Falklands and in Argentina.


demonstrated to the workers of Argentina, where the finance and transportation sectors of the economy had long been dominated by the British, that it was breaking irrevocably and completely with the legacy of British imperialism.
Handing the Falklands to the junta and allowing them to use this success to consolidate their regime and launch further attacks the working class of Argentina would have demonstrated nothing more to the Argentinian working class that your 'proletarian state' was a nationalistic chauvanist state with no interest in assisting the international working class.


That the Galtieri regime was a military junta of the most brutal sort does not alter the burden on and the obligation of socialists.
So the obligation of socialists is to oppose Thatcher and support a fascist junta engaged in an imperialist adventure - great logic there - I perfer to oppose both.


Argentinian workers are more than capable of calling for the defeat of the government's military adventures. For a British socialist to call for defeat on both sides ignores the responsibility to locate the class enemy at home.
So it is wrong for a socialist to declare international solidarity with the working class of another country and offer military assistance to overthrow a fascist junta if needed?


To call for defeat on both sides from Britain is not at all unlike calling for defeat on both sides when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 and the mercenary coalition led by the US responded militarily. After all, wasn't Saddam just as much an enemy of the workers as Bush and Major?
The CWI called for the defeat of US and British Imperialism in Iraq in 1992 and for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and called for international support for the Iraqi working class in establishing a socialist society as part of a free and volunatary socialist federation of the Middle East. Iraq under Saddam was the second ranked Imperialist power in the Middle East (after Israel) and his invasion of Kuwait was an imperialist annexation - just as the attempts by the junta in Argentina were the same.


I know what we advocated here in the US. Defeat of the US led coalition.
And defeat for Saddam and support for the rights of the Iraqi working class.


A "true socialist government" to wage "revolutionary warfare" against Iraq?
The removal of all Imperialist forces and the right of the Iraqi working class to determine their own future. Prior to the overthrow of Saddam - we would have also called for that to happen (not by Imperialism, but by the working class).


I do think that the Militants line was pro-British though, and I don't think that it has been, as you put it, "answered on numerous occasions over the past near 30 years". I think on the contary, it has been swept under the carpet and denied reapeatedly, just as the thing about the Militant threatening to grass people up after the Poll Tax riots, which millions of people heard on TV have been.
Just because the CWI was no pro-junta does not mean we were pro-British - as for sweeping it under the carpet -



In 1982 the Falklands War broke out, seemingly as a bolt from the blue which was to have a decisive effect on events in Britain. From the outset Militant posed the question:
"Whose class interest is served by the Argentine invasion and whose class interest is served by the British military expedition?" (1)
The seizure of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands arose from the desperate attempts of the Galtieri dictatorship to ward off the threat of revolution in Argentina. Not for the first time a military dictatorship had engaged in a foreign adventure as a means of reinforcing its grip on power.
Prior to the invasion, Argentina had witnessed an upsurge of working-class opposition to a brutal regime which had engaged in kidnappings, assassinations and torture. 20,000 people had ‘disappeared’. Only in 1995 was it revealed by a military whistleblower just how this was done.
Officers took it in turns to throw naked prisoners out of aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean. This was a military police dictatorship which had used fascist methods against its opponents but was now facing judgement day after a six-year bloody reign of terror. It was for this reason that Galtieri had reactivated the 150-year old claim to the Malvinas.
Just a few days before the invasion on 30 March tens of thousands of youth and workers had defied the military on the streets of Buenos Aires, protesting against impoverishment, unemployment and the suppression of trade union and democratic rights. 1,500 political and trade union opponents of the regime had been arrested just prior to the invasion.
A series of general strikes had also broken out. What would the working class in Argentina have gained from the taking of the Falklands/Malvinas? If the junta had succeeded this would have prolonged the life of the military dictatorship and worsened the conditions of the Argentine workers. On the other hand, argued Militant, "the real motive for the belligerent attitude of the British capitalists is simply their enormous loss of face." (2)
The British capitalists, like any ruling class, ultimately base their position on their income, but also on their power and prestige. Thatcher on behalf of British capitalism, invoked the rights of the Falkland Islanders.
Britain was allegedly defending democracy against ‘fascist’ Argentina. Yet, asked, Militant why had the Tories been quite happy to sanction massive arms sales to this ‘fascist’ junta and to remain completely silent about the repression of the Argentine working class?
Moreover, they had very little regard for the Falkland Islanders themselves, refusing to develop the island’s services. The Financial Times commented when the conflict broke out:
"It is precisely because no substantial British interest was involved that the crisis was allowed to arise in such a careless way."
Rather than the Falkland Islands being a paragon of democracy, as Thatcher tried to pretend, it was in effect little more than a benevolent dictatorship with its fate being decided by one firm, the Falkland Islands Company. Nevertheless, for British capitalism to simply have allowed the Argentine junta to seize the islands without any response would have struck a massive blow to its already diminished power and prestige.
Militant opposed the class collaborationist position of Labour’s front bench, which not only supported Thatcher but demanded war against Argentina. In fact Labour support for the Tories was a vital ingredient in the steps leading to the sending of the Task Force. Militant declared:
Workers can give no support whatsoever to the lunatic adventure now being prepared by the Thatcher government... the Labour Party and the trade union movement could stop Thatcher dead in her tracks. The labour movement must declare that it has no confidence whatsoever in the policies or methods of the British government... Labour must demand a general election in order that a Labour government can support and encourage workers’ opposition in Argentina. (3)
Notwithstanding this a legend has grown up around Militant’s alleged position at the time of the Falklands/Malvinas War. Ultra-left critics give the impression that Militant did not oppose the war. The above statement and those in the theoretical journal Militant International Review in June 1982 makes the position absolutely clear: "We are against this capitalist war." (4)
But Militant’s position was at odds with those lefts like Tony Benn. There was common ground on opposing the war. Differences arose on just how this was to be done and what slogans to raise within the British Labour and trade union movement. How to appeal to the majority of workers in order to mobilise effective mass opposition?
It was not sufficient merely to denounce the war or just to call for the Task Force to be withdrawn. The capitalists would be impervious to such an appeal and Militant estimated that the working class, because of the issues involved, would also remain deaf to such calls. The consciousness of the British workers over the Falklands/Malvinas and, for instance, at the time of the Gulf War were entirely different. The latter was quite clearly seen as a ‘war for oil’.
To force the withdrawal of the Task Force would have involved the organisation of a general strike, which itself would have posed the question of the coming to power of a socialist government. Yet at the outset of the war, such a demand would have received no support from the British workers. We pointed out:
The Falkland Islanders were quite understandably opposed to Argentine sovereignty if that meant the same ‘rights’ for them that it meant for ordinary workers in Argentina itself. (5)
The democratic rights of the 1,800 Falklanders, including the right to self-determination, if they so desired, was a key question in the consciousness of British workers.
A socialist solution to the problem of the Falklands/Malvinas posed the need for a socialist Argentina, and perhaps a socialist, democratic, federation of Argentina and the Falklands/Malvinas with full autonomous rights for the Islanders. However, a forcible annexation by the Argentine dictatorship of the Falkland Islands was an entirely different matter.
Although the population of the Falklands had dwindled to 1,800, hardly a nation in the classical sense of the term, they nevertheless have the right to enjoy their own language, culture and if they so desire their own form of government. Marxists could not be indifferent to the fate of the Falklanders, particularly given the consciousness of the British working class as it developed over this issue.
Militant could not condone the Islands’ subjugation by the dictatorship, represented on the Islands by the newly established military government of General Mendes. This creature was a veteran of the Junta’s ‘dirty war’, the extermination campaign against socialists and workers as well as the guerrilla groups, who had taken up arms against the Argentine military regime.
At the same time, socialists and Marxists had no confidence in the Tory government and its attempts to resolve the crisis by arms. The Task Force was sent to the Falkland Islands, not to defend the Islanders’ rights and conditions, nor was it a question of British ‘democracy’ against ‘fascist’ Argentina.
While the capitalists retained their power they would use it to defend their class interest at home and abroad. But the demand for a general strike, particularly at the outset of the war, it was clear, would have received no support, even from the advanced section of the working class. Even those who declared in favour of "stopping the war" drew back from calling for a general strike. Nor would the call to stop the war or to withdraw the fleet have provided a basis even for a mass campaign of demonstrations, meetings and agitation.
This was because it left unanswered, in the eyes of workers, the vital question of the rights of the Falkland Islanders and the question of opposing the vicious military police dictatorship in Argentina.
The only way to stop the war was to bring down the Tory government. But Thatcher had the support of the Labour Party and trade unions. Without this Thatcher could not have gone to war. Michael Foot supported sending the Task Force but, on the eve of the first engagement, also argued that it should not be used. This was a completely inconsistent and ineffectual stance. As if the Tories had sent the Fleet 8,000 miles across the Atlantic simply as a ‘show’ of force.
Militant argued that the Falklands/Malvinas conflict was not a reason for calling off the struggle against the Tories. On the contrary, the looming conflict would drain the resources of British capitalism. Big business would attempt to make the workers pay. This underlined the urgency of stepping up the struggle to bring down the Tory government.
In contrast to Militant, many so-called Marxists in Britain and internationally, gave either tacit or open support to the Argentine dictatorship. This could only play into the hands of the Tories and British imperialism.
These groups reasoned that the only consistent way to oppose the British ruling class was to support the enemy of British capitalism. They ended up by giving support to the Argentine military-police dictatorship. Thus from the correct starting point of opposition to this capitalist war these groups ended in a political cul-de-sac.
Their analysis allegedly drew on Lenin and Trotsky’s attitude toward the first world war. Lenin’s idea of 1914 - ‘Revolutionary Defeatism’ - was invoked. This was done without bothering to examine the circumstances and without understanding Lenin’s method. There were enormous differences between the circumstances of the first world war and the clash almost 70 years later between British imperialism and Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas.
On an historical point: Lenin himself explained in 1921 that the slogan of "a civil war of revolutionary defeatism" was a slogan for the core of party activists to draw a clear line of distinction between traitors who had supported the war in 1914 and genuine Marxism. It was not a ‘slogan’ for winning the mass of the workers in Russia or elsewhere.
Trotsky also pointed out on the eve of the second world war that the slogan of "revolutionary defeatism" could not "win the masses", who did not want a "foreign conqueror". He went on to point out that the decisive role in the conquest of power by the working class in Russia in October 1917 was played not by the refusal to defend the "bourgeois fatherland" but by the slogan of "All Power to the Soviets" and only by this revolutionary slogan. The Bolsheviks’ criticism of imperialism and militarism could never have won the overwhelmingly majority of the people to the side of the Bolsheviks. The argument that in the Falklands/Malvinas War it was simply a case of ‘imperialist’ Britain against a colonial country, Argentina, did not hold water.
This was used by some as justification for supporting the Junta. The Argentine regime’s invasion was not a war of ‘national liberation’ against imperialism. On the contrary, in seizing the Falklands/Malvinas the Argentine Junta was pursuing the ‘imperialist’ aims of Argentine capitalism.
Galtieri had invaded the Islands for political reasons - to head off revolution and to save his regime. Behind Galtieri stood the Argentine financiers and capitalists, eager to get their hands on the economic potential of Antarctic oil and other natural resources in the region.
Militant pointed out that it was ludicrous to describe Argentine capitalism as a completely dependent, ‘comprador’ capitalist regime dominated by the agents of foreign capital. Statistics showed that Argentina, despite its neo-colonialist subservience to US imperialism as well as West European and Japanese big business, nevertheless had all the characteristics of a semi-industrialised capitalist economy.
The situation would have been different if British imperialism had decided to invade Argentina itself. This was a scenario which Trotsky clearly had in mind when commenting on a hypothetical situation involving Brazil in the 1930s:
In Brazil there now reigns a semi-fascist 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 the ‘fascist’ Brazil against the ‘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. (6)
Merely repeating Trotsky’s words, without grasping his method, the sects seized on this as justification for their "critical support".
If there were an Argentine population on the Islands, subject to British rule against their will, the situation would also have been different. Then there would have been a case for a national liberation war to free the Islands. Even then the Marxists would advocate class independence from the Argentine dictatorship. But this was not the case in 1982. Apart from one or two Argentines married to Islanders, there had been no Argentineans on the Islands for 150 years. "Galtieri’s war" was a classic case of a crumbling military dictatorship seeking salvation in a foreign adventure.
While Militant defended the analysis and main slogans which we put forward in Britain in the course of the conflict, at the same time it recognised that a different emphasis would have been needed to be adopted by Argentine Marxists.
While they would be duty bound to oppose the war, pointing to the real aims of the Junta, at the same time once the war had begun the Argentine Marxists would have stood for the full mobilisation of the working class on a clear anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist programme.
This would have necessitated calling for the expropriation of all ‘imperialist assets’ in Argentina, starting with those of British imperialism. At the same time they would have called for the arming of the working class, and by implication the overthrow of the military dictatorship, as a means of winning the war.
In contrast to the Junta Argentine Marxism would have offered full autonomy to the Islanders in the context of a socialist federation with Argentina as a step towards a Socialist United States of Latin America.
British imperialism triumphed over Argentina and in so doing gave an enormous boost to the Thatcher government. However, such an outcome was not at all pre-ordained, as subsequent accounts demonstrated. Militant argued at the time that if one of the British aircraft carriers had been sunk in the invasion of the Islands the war would have developed over a much longer period of time.
Then, as the body bags began to come home, the earlier support would have begun to evaporate. Thatcher was lucky that in this conflict she came up against a more corrupt and incompetent regime than her own. But as Militant had also foreshadowed, the consequences of the defeat of the Argentine Junta was its overthrow and the danger of revolution; one of the reasons why Reagan was a little reluctant to support Thatcher, his number one ally.
In Britain the ‘Falklands factor’ had a decisive effect in 1982-83. Britain’s ‘triumph’ conjured up shades of a ‘glorious imperialist past’. The effect of this was more striking in the South-East and the Midlands which was historically the home of Joseph Chamberlain’s ‘imperialism’.
Boosted by massive support from the press, Thatcher was able to equate, for a time at least, Britain’s military triumph with hopes of a return to Britain’s past ‘economic glory’. In the May 1982 council elections, despite four million unemployed, falling living standards and generally disastrous economic policies, the Tories in fact held on, registering a net overall gain of a handful of seats.
The Falklands factor would be part of the explanation for Thatcher’s 1983 general election victory.
Finally - the Militant never threatened to 'grass' on people in the poll tax campaign - it was and continues to be a disgraceful sectarian slur against the leadership of a campaign that helped achieve the greatest success of the British working class in the past half decade.



The Militant at the time was pretty big, much bigger than any of the leftist parties today, about 8,000 if I remember correctly, and much of that growth came pretty rapidly. There is a problem though with integrating members who don't understand your politics, in that you end up as an organisation that is run by the leadership giving the line to the mass of the members, and that as we know is not a good way for any organisation that calls itself socialist to work.
You are correct - the rapid growth in the mid-1980s posed significant difficulties for the Militant Tendency (similar rapid growth in Ireland caused similar difficulties) and the level of political consciousness of many members was a major problem. But do we recruit workers and youth who want to fight for a socialist change in society and work over time to develop their political understanding through discussion and experience - or are we to reject them as members because they are not rounded out Marxists? We chose the first option. Undoubtedly the collapse of Stalinism had a massive disorienting effect on a whole generation of socialists and it impacted on large sections of the CWI at the time (it was partly responsible for the split with the IMT).


In my opinion, the Militant pandered to some of the most reactionary right-wing prejudices in British labourism, and I say British because they often were very national prejudices. Their position on Northern Ireland would be another.
And becasue we didn't pander to republican paramilitarism, we are pandering to British labourism.


Added to this the policy on social issues like homosexuality, and the constant support for the labour Party, which only a few years earlier had been in government, and imposing wage restraints, and I think that it is quite evident that the Militant tailored its polices in order not to offend traditional Labourism. I think the fact that it did was more down to their organisational success than their political ideas.
The attitude towards homosexuality was driven by Grant and was the subject of constant battles within the CWI since the 1960's. In Ireland we simply ignored Grant's line on homosexuality - in Britain (given his standing) it was maybe more difficult to stand up to the leading figure in the organisation. The reality is that those in Britain who would have fought for a different position didn't join the Militant because everyone knew Grant's attitude.

The support for the LP was different and grounded in the nature of the LP at the time - a thoroughly different political animal at the time. Admitedly we should have left earlier than we did - at the height of the Liverpool campaign - but given the committemnt of lefts like Heffer to the LP I think there was a feeling of abandoning them. The Militant never tailored it policies not to offend 'traditional labour'.



This is basically true. The Labour party has always been a defender of Britain's imperial interests. The fact that the Militant hadn't realised that at the time, and were still inside it doesn't mean that it wasn't true. The class nature of the Labour Party in no way changed when the Militant members were being witch-hunted out.
Misunderstanding of Militants atitude to the LP. The fact that we were doing entry work in the LP does not mean we did not know the role and politics of the leadership or the history of the party. The class nature of the LP had begun to change prior to the withch-hunts - in small ways prior to Kinnock becoming leader and accelerated rapidly as soon as he did. It is readily acknowledged within the CWI that the open turn in Britan should have happened earlier than it did - it was however necessary to see if the left (which was still substantial) could regain its position after 1983 and this did impact on attitudes in the Militant.



This is certainly true. A defeat for Britain might have dramatically changed the situation of the working class. It is quite possible that the Conservative government wouldn't have been re-elected, and even if it had might not have felt strong enough to take on the miners, remembering that only the previous year they had attempted too and backed down.
I disagree - I believe it is likely that the LP would have moved against the miners as soon as Foot had been removed from the leadership - there is no way the right would have left Foot in control for anything longer than 12 months. And a re-elected Tory government would not have changed strategy - possibly only timeframe.



I think this is actually wrong and it came out later that it was a much more touch and go thing than it seemed at the time.
The weakness of the junta would have significantly reduced the possibility of the British forces being defeated - and if they had the strategy of Thatcher would have been to rally 'patriotic sentiment' and sent a bigger one - the junta would have done the same and the working class would have suffered the consequences. This is not to say that it would ahve hapened - but I believe it was a more likely scenario.



I think that that was mainly sloganering. We all knew it wasn't on the cards, unfortunately.
It was more likely that the 'withdrawl of the fleet' -



I think that the Militant exaggerated this,
Nearly 30 years later we are still getting this line - it wasn't in the least exaggerated then or now.


On the other hand if were arguing this line in Argentina, it would have been worse than absurd. It would have been social-patriotism.
If you read through the piece I quoted from 'The Rise of Militant' you will see that we would have argued a position with different 'emphasis' in Argentina.

[Palingenisis]

I think you are just attampting to stir it a little here Devrim.

I dont think he is...Its certainly more believable than the mythical nutter Irps who live near you story...After all were you not part of a social-imperialist party at that time?

One of your former organizers in Ireland who originally came from the north of England was outspoken in his support for the "Loyalists" in their fight against "Green fascism".

[Jolly Red Giant]

I dont think he is...
Too late sunshine - he already admitted he was.


Its certainly more believable than the mythical nutter Irps who live near you story...
Boo - hoo -


After all were you not part of a social-imperialist party at that time?
Nope - I was a member of a revolutionary organisation carrying out entry work into the social democracy - a bit like the INLA carrying out entry work on the building sites.


One of your former organizers in Ireland who originally came from the north of England was outspoken in his support for the "Loyalists" in their fight against "Green fascism".
Go on - name names - I'm sure your kneecaps are safe.

[Palingenisis]

Go on - name names - I'm sure your kneecaps are safe.
`
Roger ring any bells?

Obviously Im not going to give out his second name.

[S.Artesian]

"You are again ignoring the second part of the LP stuff - a Labour government elected on a socialist programme. The LP of 1982 was for significantly different character than the LP of today - it had a vibrant left-wing and a significant base of trade union activists. The potential for pushing the LP further to the left through the adoption of the position of the Militant Tendency could have fundementally altered the balance of class forces at the time. Instead the majority of the left in the LP adopted Benn's pacifist approach."

I'm ignoring the second part of the LP stuff? You're ignoring reality, in that the LP under Callaghan had so disoriented and debilitated the British workers that it, the LP absolutely paved the way for the victory of Thatcher.

Drawing political tactics, strategy, and program from an oxymoron, election of a Labour government on a socialist programme, says it all.

[S.Artesian]

One other question for comrade JRG:

The Malvinas conflict to one side, if a "Labour government with a socialist programme" had been elected to power in the UK rather than Thatcher, do you think the Militant would have, should have advocated for, or supported actions by such a government in dispatching a military force to topple the fascist junta in Argentina?

If your answer is no, then why not? What's the difference in terms of class relations, and imperialism with or without the Malvinas issue?

[Jolly Red Giant]

`
Roger ring any bells?
Nope - and I have known all the SP organisers in this country over the past 30 years - if not a second name then maybe you could give a timeframe.



I'm ignoring the second part of the LP stuff? You're ignoring reality, in that the LP under Callaghan had so disoriented and debilitated the British workers that it, the LP absolutely paved the way for the victory of Thatcher.
Yes Callaghan did pave the way for Thatcher's victory - but again you are ignoring the fact that the Militant did not call for the election of the LP - but the election of the LP on a socialist programme. the potential existed within the LP for the left to win a majority - and the left could have used the Falklands war to build on its position at that time if it had adopted the correct strategy. The strategy of pacifism that it did adopt was a failure and assisted Thatcher in using the war to re-inforce her government.


Drawing political tactics, strategy, and program from an oxymoron, election of a Labour government on a socialist programme, says it all.
The inability to understand the need for transitional demands says it all - revolution or bust (and in your case bust would be the only outcome).



The Malvinas conflict to one side, if a "Labour government with a socialist programme" had been elected to power in the UK rather than Thatcher, do you think the Militant would have, should have advocated for, or supported actions by such a government in dispatching a military force to topple the fascist junta in Argentina?
No


If your answer is no, then why not? What's the difference in terms of class relations, and imperialism with or without the Malvinas issue?
The difference was that the position adopted by the Militant Tendency on the Falklands War was adopted after the decision to sent Thatcher military force - it was based on the concrete realities of what was happening. For a socialist government to have done the same would be to have re-inforced the position of the junta in Argentina (just as initially happened when Thatcher sent the fleet). The junta needed a reaction from British Imperialism and it knew it would get it. Taking the islands on their own was not going to save the junta at the time.

A socialist government should and would offer any assistance needed by the Argentinian working class in overthrowing the junta and moving to overthrow capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

The election of the Labour Party on a socialist programme? You call that a transitional demand, I call it an oxymoron. I think history has settled which one it is. But am I missing something here [rhetorical question, I'm sure I'm missing something, the question is what]?

You are calling for the election of the Labour Party on a socialist programme to do exactly what? Recall the UK task force or wage a "revolutionary war"?

All the rest.. about a "socialist solution requiring a socialist Argentina" really is immaterial, when coming from the the country that had historically wielded dominant economic power in Argentina.

Should the UK task force have been recalled, or should it have continued its advance towards the Malvinas under a "Labor government with a socialist programme' as it did under the Tory government with its capitalist programme?

[Jolly Red Giant]

The election of the Labour Party on a socialist programme? You call that a transitional demand, I call it an oxymoron. I think history has settled which one it is. But am I missing something here [rhetorical question, I'm sure I'm missing something, the question is what]?
You most definitely are missing something - you are missing any understanding of the nature and class composition of the LP in 1982 - you are standing on the outside looking through foggy glass at a 30 year issue - and the best you can come up with is that it is an oxymoron.

By the way a 'rhetoric question' does not require a reply - clearly you accept that your 'rhetorical question' did.


You are calling for the election of the Labour Party on a socialist programme to do exactly what? Recall the UK task force or wage a "revolutionary war"?
Read the excerpt I quoted above and my previous comments - it goes into this issue in detail.


All the rest.. about a "socialist solution requiring a socialist Argentina" really is immaterial, when coming from the the country that had historically wielded dominant economic power in Argentina.
Again a complete lack of understanding about the nature of Argentina and stick to old rigid dogma - Argentina was a colonial country so it cannot play an Imperialist role. For f*ck sake - little old Ireland is attempting to play an imperialist role as part of the EU battlegroups.


Should the UK task force have been recalled, or should it have continued its advance towards the Malvinas under a "Labor government with a socialist programme' as it did under the Tory government with its capitalist programme?
This is really getting repetitious - if you want answers then I suggest you read them when given - not keep repeatedly asking the same questions - read the quoted extract above.

Final point there is one hell of a difference between a capitalist government under Thatcher and a socialist one. If you have difficulty understanding that then I suggest you need to do a bit of reading.

And one question - are you like the clown above who said that if he were in Argentina at the time he would volunteer to fight for a fascist junta?

[S.Artesian]

You most definitely are missing something - you are missing any understanding of the nature and class composition of the LP in 1982 - you are standing on the outside looking through foggy glass at a 30 year issue - and the best you can come up with is that it is an oxymoron.

By the way a 'rhetoric question' does not require a reply - clearly you accept that your 'rhetorical question' did.


Read the excerpt I quoted above and my previous comments - it goes into this issue in detail.


Again a complete lack of understanding about the nature of Argentina and stick to old rigid dogma - Argentina was a colonial country so it cannot play an Imperialist role. For f*ck sake - little old Ireland is attempting to play an imperialist role as part of the EU battlegroups.


This is really getting repetitious - if you want answers then I suggest you read them when given - not keep repeatedly asking the same questions - read the quoted extract above.

Final point there is one hell of a difference between a capitalist government under Thatcher and a socialist one. If you have difficulty understanding that then I suggest you need to do a bit of reading.

And one question - are you like the clown above who said that if he were in Argentina at the time he would volunteer to fight for a fascist junta?


Oh that's a right good question you Lombard, am I like that clown? No I'm like a different clown. Fuck you and your clown bullshit. Tell me do you still beat your wife?

I read what you posted above, and I simply wanted confirmation. You state that a

" A proletarian state would have removed the officer corps from the force, placed it under democratic control of the ranks and used it, if necessary, to further the interests of the working class in the Falklands and in Argentina."

That's a proletarian state? Besides the fantastic delusional character of the above statement, thinking that something like that could or would have been done with a task force 8000 miles away without destroying its combat capability, seeing as how such a maneuver would have had absolutely no support with the troops of 2 Para, 3 Para, SAS, SBS, the commandos etc... despite the unreality of that proposal exactly then how would engaging in combat aid the "working class" of the Malvinas [what working class by the way?] and Argentina? By defeating the junta and leading to its collapse?

That's wonderful. How is that any different from what the Thatcher government accomplished? It's not any different, so why not just support Thatcher and remark on the irony of the Iron Maiden of the British bourgeoisie objectively aiding the struggle of the working class in Argentina?

There is no substantive difference in your proposal-- labor government with a socialist programme conducting the war against Argentina-- and the policy actually executed by Thatcher... and that says all that needs to be said about your fine language regarding interests of the Argentine working class, socialism, the rights of the Malvinas to self-determination... blah, blah, blah.

As for what the Argentine Marxists should have done....that's not the issue; the issue is what the Militant advocated.

[Devrim]

Just because the CWI was no pro-junta does not mean we were pro-British - as for sweeping it under the carpet -
I don't say you were pro-British because you weren't pro_Junta. I say it because you were pro-British. The Militant were pro-war:

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 presume these are the same sort of socialist lines as the war in Iraq is being run upon.

I have seen the article you posted before. I would much rather see stuff from the time, and from the paper not the theoretical journal.


Finally - the Militant never threatened to 'grass' on people in the poll tax campaign - it was and continues to be a disgraceful sectarian slur against the leadership of a campaign that helped achieve the greatest success of the British working class in the past half decade.

You may convince your new members of that, and you may convince a few other people. However, you won't convince me, and millions of others, who saw them do it on TV the day after the Poll Tax riot.


You are correct - the rapid growth in the mid-1980s posed significant difficulties for the Militant Tendency (similar rapid growth in Ireland caused similar difficulties) and the level of political consciousness of many members was a major problem. But do we recruit workers and youth who want to fight for a socialist change in society and work over time to develop their political understanding through discussion and experience - or are we to reject them as members because they are not rounded out Marxists? We chose the first option.

I don't think that you can intergrate people into a political organisation without them understanding its politics. If you do you end up with 'leaders and led', and people backing their own army in imperialist wars, which is what you got.


And becasue we didn't pander to republican paramilitarism, we are pandering to British labourism.

No, I didn't suggest that at all.


The support for the LP was different and grounded in the nature of the LP at the time - a thoroughly different political animal at the time. Admitedly we should have left earlier than we did - at the height of the Liverpool campaign - but given the committemnt of lefts like Heffer to the LP I think there was a feeling of abandoning them. The Militant never tailored it policies not to offend 'traditional labour'.

Are you suggesting that the Labour Party in the 1980s wasn't a supporter of British imperialism despite the fact that the Labour Party, like the Militant, supported the Falklands War? It was fundamentally the same anti-working class party that it is now.


Misunderstanding of Militants atitude to the LP. The fact that we were doing entry work in the LP does not mean we did not know the role and politics of the leadership or the history of the party. The class nature of the LP had begun to change prior to the withch-hunts - in small ways prior to Kinnock becoming leader and accelerated rapidly as soon as he did. It is readily acknowledged within the CWI that the open turn in Britan should have happened earlier than it did - it was however necessary to see if the left (which was still substantial) could regain its position after 1983 and this did impact on attitudes in the Militant.

Please tell me what the class nature of the Labour Party was before this point, now and how it changed.


I disagree - I believe it is likely that the LP would have moved against the miners as soon as Foot had been removed from the leadership - there is no way the right would have left Foot in control for anything longer than 12 months. And a re-elected Tory government would not have changed strategy - possibly only timeframe.


This is certainly true. A defeat for Britain might have dramatically changed the situation of the working class. It is quite possible that the Conservative government wouldn't have been re-elected, and even if it had might not have felt strong enough to take on the miners, remembering that only the previous year they had attempted too and backed down.

I don't have any particular opinions on it. I was just saying it was possible.


If you read through the piece I quoted from 'The Rise of Militant' you will see that we would have argued a position with different 'emphasis' in Argentina.

I wasn't referring to your line here. I was referring to this:


If I were Argentine, on the other hand, I would have signed up for the armed forces(if I hadn't already been conscripted)

Devrim

[vyborg]

The horrendous mechanicism that pushes someone considering himself marxist or communist or trotskist to support politically a fascist junta didn't ended with the Falkland war. We have seen many trotskyst groups proposing a military alliance with talibans against US imperialism. Of course this position never meant they actually sent a battalion of their finest comrades to Kandahar. It was only a ridicolous gesture. Similar idiot positon were taken in the Iugoslavia or Chechenia war.

It goes without saying that these positions put these groups outside any real development of the class struggle on planet earth.

[Lyev]

I understand this is an attack on Trotskyism, but the legitimacy of an ideology is not under threat from the provocations of one single sectarian. Anyway, I wasn't even alive when the UK invaded the Falklands in 1982 nor will I defend either side. However, I will interject with this interesting quote from Ernesto Sabato, an Argentine writer at the time: "Don't be mistaken, Europe; it is not a dictatorship who is fighting for the Malvinas, it is the whole Nation. Opposers of the military dictatorship, like me, are fighting to extirpate the last trace of colonialism."

[Jolly Red Giant]

I say it because you were pro-British.
Devrim - its a bit rich to suggest that an Irish Marxist could be 'pro-British'. The same would also apply for theMilitant - if the Militant was pro-British why would the Militant support self determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales?


The Militant were pro-war:
Again during the Falklands the Militant was not 'pro-war' - it was anti-pacifist - are you suggesting that Marxists should be pacifists?



I presume these are the same sort of socialist lines as the war in Iraq is being run upon.
You are being more than a little facetious here now.


I have seen the article you posted before. I would much rather see stuff from the time, and from the paper not the theoretical journal.
Don't have copies of the paper - I am sure they are around - direct quotations given in the piece copied above are from the paper.


You may convince your new members of that, and you may convince a few other people. However, you won't convince me, and millions of others, who saw them do it on TV the day after the Poll Tax riot.
And what exactly did you see - and edited interview with Steve Nally - an interview that was outlined in full the following day by the Militant. If millions saw 'it' - and put the same interpretation on it why was Steve Nally overwhelmingly re-elected Anti-Poll Tax national secretary a few weeks later?



I don't think that you can intergrate people into a political organisation without them understanding its politics. If you do you end up with 'leaders and led', and people backing their own army in imperialist wars, which is what you got.
So you are not in favour of inviting workers to join until they fully understand an organisations politics. I don't think I have ever recruited anyone to the CWI or seen any recruit to the CWI who has had anything approaching a full understanding of the CWI's politics. There are risks when there is a large number of recruits during a period of confused consciousness. However, if you adopt that attitude that recruits have to understand the organisations politics you will be in a party of one.


Are you suggesting that the Labour Party in the 1980s wasn't a supporter of British imperialism
The leadership were - the party as a whole was not - it is possible you have not experienced the internal mechanics of the social democracies - but the majority of the party could be anti-imperialist with the leadership and a majority of the reps being pro-imperialist - it doesn't and didn't make the party as a whole pro-imperialist.


despite the fact that the Labour Party, like the Militant, supported the Falklands War?
These swipes are unbecoming of you - particularly as you generally have a measured and considered response to political questions.


Please tell me what the class nature of the Labour Party was before this point, now and how it changed.
The LP in the late 1970's -early 1980's had a considerable left-wing element and considerable support among rank-and-file trade union activists. In 1981 Benn came within a handful of votes of defeating Healey for the deputy leadership of the LP. There was a wide range of what were considered left-wing councils (hard left by todays standards) and significant activism within the unions that significantly influenced local LP branches. The left consistantly won the CLP vote at LP conferences with the leadership always having to rely on the TU block vote to stave off being removed. The situation was similar in other countries - in Ireland Labour Left was organised around Higgins and Stagg with significant influence among trade union shop stewards. Between Labour Left and the Militant the left almost won control of the LP Adminstrative Council and in 1984 Spring survived being removed as leader by 12 votes (out of over 1500) and being replaced by Higgins at a conference in Cork.

What happened after - the impending and eventual collapse of Stalinism in the late 1980's saw a draqmatic move to the right among the previous left-wing elements. LP branches were emptied out of activists, shop stewards stopped engaging with the party and rules changes dramatically reduced what little democratic accountability that existed. From just the leadership - the entire party was bourgeoisified. To be honest you really had to be within the LP to see the dramatic changes that occurred.


Ernesto Sabato, an Argentine writer at the time: "Don't be mistaken, Europe; it is not a dictatorship who is fighting for the Malvinas, it is the whole Nation. Opposers of the military dictatorship, like me, are fighting to extirpate the last trace of colonialism."
It would be a mistake to take a quote from a disillusioned ex-Stalinist intellectual to justify an imperialist adventure by the junta. Certainly the junta had been whipping up nationalist fervour for months prior to the occupation of the Falklands - but that does not convert an imperialist intervention into an attack on colonialism.

A similar attitude would have been for Ireland to detach a large strikeforce to annex Rockall (and a tricolour has been planted on it more than once) and claim that it was an attack against 800 years of british colonialism. Or an even better example - the French invading the Channel islands and claiming there were acting against Englands annexation of the islands 1204.

[S.Artesian]

The horrendous mechanicism that pushes someone considering himself marxist or communist or trotskist to support politically a fascist junta didn't ended with the Falkland war. We have seen many trotskyst groups proposing a military alliance with talibans against US imperialism. Of course this position never meant they actually sent a battalion of their finest comrades to Kandahar. It was only a ridicolous gesture. Similar idiot positon were taken in the Iugoslavia or Chechenia war.

It goes without saying that these positions put these groups outside any real development of the class struggle on planet earth.

The only question that matters, actually the only answer I'm interested in, is.. in the la-la land of the fantasy of a change in the class composition of the Labour Party, should a Labour Party have been elected on a socialist programme, would or should that government have immediately recalled the task force, yes or no?

JRG says no. And you comrade Vyborg?

And we can ask you to extend your answer to Iraq 1991, Afghanistan, and even Iraq 2003: Should such a fantasy exist as anything other than fantasy, should or would the LP-SP withdraw its British forces immediately from Afghanistan, Iraq or should it "democratize" those forces and wage a revolutionary war, offering support to the workers of.... Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan by, of course... shooting them without regard to their class status?

To our JRG-- the notion of "democratizing" the task force, removing its officers is about as delusional a notion as I've come across-- given the isolation of the task force from the working class struggle, given the makeup of commando type forces where officers are quite closely connected with the enlisted men. You think the SAS, SBS, RM, RMC are going to elect "red" SAS, SBS, RM, RMC officers?

I don't know what your experience with special forces in the military is, mine tells me as we used to say back in the day "Never Happen."

[Ravachol]

Absolutely. When some socialists come up with silly concepts like "revolutionary defeatism" and all that jazz, real socialists insist on supporting their own country. Just like that Lenin guy, who demanded that Russia should continue fighting the Germans and bring them socialism.


I don't know if i'm misreading you, but I think taking sides in any inter-imperialist conflict is counter-revolutionary. The only 'faction' deserving any support is the international working class, organised along class lines, preferably undermining both imperialist nations from within. The working class ought to resist being drafted for bourgois wars at all times. It is from refusal that resistance is born.

[Wanted Man]

I don't know if i'm misreading you, but I think taking sides in any inter-imperialist conflict is counter-revolutionary. The only 'faction' deserving any support is the international working class, organised along class lines, preferably undermining both imperialist nations from within. The working class ought to resist being drafted for bourgois wars at all times. It is from refusal that resistance is born.

It was intended as sarcasm. I, of course, agree with you. And like I told comrades like vyborg before, I do not think that this changes as soon as social-democrats are in power. :)

By the way, if I were Argentinean, I would have fought against the junta as well, but that is besides the point. The relevant matter here is what their (the Militant's) political tendency did in Britain, and why they continue to uphold this; not what Revleft users would have done hypothetically if they were Argentinean.

[Ravachol]

It was intended as sarcasm. I, of course, agree with you. And like I told comrades like vyborg before, I do not think that this changes as soon as social-democrats are in power. :)

By the way, if I were Argentinean, I would have fought against the junta as well, but that is besides the point. The relevant matter here is what their (the Militant's) political tendency did in Britain, and why they continue to uphold this; not what Revleft users would have done hypothetically if they were Argentinean.

Ah, I already thought I misread you ;)
As far as the Militant Tendency is considered, their attempting to 'influence' Labour by drafting programme's calling for the nationalisation of certain industries and such is plain ridiculous.
Not only does this reduce the working class to a passive spectator (thus keeping the class unorganised, keeping class conciousness low and not empowering the working class AT ALL) it just transfer's control over the means of production from one faction of the bourgoisie (the private sector) to another (the bourgois state).

I just don't get why some people praise Militant.
Relying on influencing the 'left-wing' of the bourgois political apparatus isn't only naive, it's completely counter-productive to the cause of proletarian empowerment.

[Yehuda Stern]

While a correct criticism of militant, this is obviously a very cheap shot taken at Trotskyism. Many Trotskyist groups were for Britain's defeat at the time, and on the IMT's website one can find a lengthy debate with Luis Oviedo of the Argentinian PO (http://www.marxist.com/luis-oviedo-malvinas-war170204.htm) on the question. Also, the American LRP, with whom my organizational, the ISL, is in contact, opposed the war and condemned the chauvinism of the various Trotskyist groups which supported Britain under different pretexts.

[Vanguard1917]

I think that the Militant exaggerated this, but certainly those sort of positions existed. The RCP would be a prime example. Personally, I have never really understood this line. It can be hard enough sometimes in times of war arguing with workers that their own country is wrong. I don't understand why leftists want to argue for an even more difficult, mostly because of its absurdity, of trying to get workers to support the other side.

If it's the correct position, why can't workers be made to see that? Are they too thick?

And i do believe that it was the correct position to argue for an immediate withdrawal of British troops from the Falklands and for the military defeat of those troops by the Argentians. That is the tradition of Marxism -- from Marx to Lenin to Trotksy. The slogan of the RCP at the time (the group you mention) was entirely in keeping with that tradition: "The Malvinas are Argentina's".

Of course, at the time this was a very unfashionable idea, as the entire nation was seemingly gathering around in support of Thatcher's jingoism. Even, as we see, sections of the 'far left'.

[Ravachol]

If it's the correct position, why can't workers be made to see that? Are they too thick?

And i do believe that it was the correct position to argue for an immediate withdrawal of British troops from the Falklands and for the military defeat of those troops by the Argentians. That is the tradition of Marxism -- from Marx to Lenin to Trotksy. The slogan of the RCP at the time (the group you mention) was entirely in keeping with that tradition: "The Malvinas are Argentina's".

Of course, at the time this was a very unfashionable idea, as the entire nation was seemingly gathering around in support of Thatcher's jingoism. Even, as we see, sections of the 'far left'.

Why would any sane leftist support either side of this inter-imperialist conflict? A genuine call for sabotage of the war effort on both sides and a refusal to join in would be a more correct position for the proletarian movement. No war but the class war!

[Devrim]

If it's the correct position, why can't workers be made to see that? Are they too thick?

No, it wasn't the correct position.


And i do believe that it was the correct position to argue for an immediate withdrawal of British troops from the Falklands and for the military defeat of those troops by the Argentians. That is the tradition of Marxism -- from Marx to Lenin to Trotksy. The slogan of the RCP at the time (the group you mention) was entirely in keeping with that tradition: "The Malvinas are Argentina's".

No, it's not.


Of course, at the time this was a very unfashionable idea, as the entire nation was seemingly gathering around in support of Thatcher's jingoism. Even, as we see, sections of the 'far left'.

The RCP's politics were designed around 'unfashionable ideas', much of it what would upset the nice Guardian reading middle class parents of the students they recruited to make them seem radical.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

The RCP's politics were designed around 'unfashionable ideas', much of it what would upset the nice Guardian reading middle class parents of the students they recruited to make them seem radical.

A caricature, but no attempt to address the issue. The RCP's position was in line with the position of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks regarding imperialist wars. But i guess the Bolsheviks were just trying to upset middle class Russian parents by going around calling for revolutionary defeatism and the collapse of Imperial Russia.

And being a radical is about challenging fashionable ideas, since fashionable ideas, in politics at least, tend to be the ideas of the ruling class.

[Ravachol]

A caricature, but no attempt to address the issue. The RCP's position was in line with the position of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks regarding imperialist wars. But i guess the Bolsheviks were just trying to upset middle class Russian parents by going around calling for revolutionary defeatism and the collapse of Imperial Russia.

And being a radical is about challenging fashionable ideas, since fashionable ideas, in politics at least, tend to be the ideas of the ruling class.

How is calling for the 'victory' of either side in an inter-imperialist war going to aid the international working class?

[Vanguard1917]

How is calling for the 'victory' of either side in an inter-imperialist war going to aid the international working class?

It was not an 'inter-imperialist war'. It was an act of aggression by an imperialist country (Britain) against a country which, however developed it may have been in relation to other Latin American countries, was under the domination of Western imperialism.

[The Grey Blur]

Argentina wasn't imperialist however.

Lesser of two evils and all that jazz.

'mon the Argies! :D
Reading this thread has really surprised me the amount of so called leftists who would have supported a right-wing military junta engaged in crushing workers' struggles as a 'lesser of two evils'. Personally I think anyone advocating this line should be banned as a supporter of fascism.

[vyborg]

The only question that matters, actually the only answer I'm interested in, is.. in the la-la land of the fantasy of a change in the class composition of the Labour Party, should a Labour Party have been elected on a socialist programme, would or should that government have immediately recalled the task force, yes or no?

JRG says no. And you comrade Vyborg?

And we can ask you to extend your answer to Iraq 1991, Afghanistan, and even Iraq 2003: Should such a fantasy exist as anything other than fantasy, should or would the LP-SP withdraw its British forces immediately from Afghanistan, Iraq or should it "democratize" those forces and wage a revolutionary war, offering support to the workers of.... Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan by, of course... shooting them without regard to their class status?

To our JRG-- the notion of "democratizing" the task force, removing its officers is about as delusional a notion as I've come across-- given the isolation of the task force from the working class struggle, given the makeup of commando type forces where officers are quite closely connected with the enlisted men. You think the SAS, SBS, RM, RMC are going to elect "red" SAS, SBS, RM, RMC officers?

I don't know what your experience with special forces in the military is, mine tells me as we used to say back in the day "Never Happen."

The army is made by special groups as well as ordinary detachment. you propose democratic measures for all. it will surprise you how much even the most "special" corpos can be affected by the revolutionary mood of the population. Chavez was saved by paratroopers in 2002, normally one of the most right wing corp of every army.

The army is not isolated from the working class. It reflectes precisely the consciousness of the workers. In the 70s in Italy tens of thousands of soldiers participiated in mass demo of the workers (of course with a scarf on the face).

I ask to anyone in here pretending that supporting the fascist junta was a very clever idea: if you were an argentinian worker in 1981-1982, had you preferred that a victory of a socialist programme in UK had changed the balance of forces there, hence changing the foreign policy of the country, starting from the Falklands, or had you preferred a victory of the junta that had just slaughered some tens of thousands of your comrades and wished to go on like this

[Jolly Red Giant]

should a Labour Party have been elected on a socialist programme, would or should that government have immediately recalled the task force, yes or no?

JRG says no.
Let me make a point for clarification - I would not have supported the withdrawl of the Task Force - but that does not equate to engaging in conflict with Argentinian troops on the Falklands.


And we can ask you to extend your answer to Iraq 1991, Afghanistan, and even Iraq 2003:
No you cannot - you cannot equate two different political circumstances and situations. The CWI supports the withdrawl of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan - and if you don't understand the difference you have made absolutely no effort to read this thread and are engaged in a blatant sectarian rant.



To our JRG-- the notion of "democratizing" the task force, removing its officers is about as delusional a notion as I've come across-- given the isolation of the task force from the working class struggle, given the makeup of commando type forces where officers are quite closely connected with the enlisted men. You think the SAS, SBS, RM, RMC are going to elect "red" SAS, SBS, RM, RMC officers?
You have absolutely no idea what impact the election of a socialist government would have had on the ranks of the task force - or what would have happened if the officers refused to hand over control and were ordered not to attack the Falklands - the state forces do not operate in isolation from society (even from the south Atlantic).

The delusional notion is one supporting a fascist junta engaged in an imperialist adventure to try and save its own ass.


I don't know what your experience with special forces in the military is, mine tells me as we used to say back in the day "Never Happen."
The dismissal of the possibility and necessity of winning the ranks of the state forces to the side of socialism is typical of those on the left who have no understanding of the process of revolution.



I just don't get why some people praise Militant.
Relying on influencing the 'left-wing' of the bourgois political apparatus isn't only naive, it's completely counter-productive to the cause of proletarian empowerment.
Another lefty who assumes that workers automatically jump from passivity direct to marxism and revolution.



I ask to anyone in here pretending that supporting the fascist junta was a very clever idea: if you were an argentinian worker in 1981-1982, had you preferred that a victory of a socialist programme in UK had changed the balance of forces there, hence changing the foreign policy of the country, starting from the Falklands, or had you preferred a victory of the junta that had just slaughered some tens of thousands of your comrades and wished to go on like this
:thumbup1:

[Yehuda Stern]

Eirigi: I think anyone who refuses to support a defeat for an imperialist state's aggression against an oppressed country should be banned as a supporter of imperialist war. It seems that neither one of us is about to get his wish.

vyborg: that you call the election of a reformist party a victory for socialism just shows how reformist and detached from reality your politics are. If I were an Argentinian worker, I would prefer the defeat of imperialism, and I would prefer that had I been a worker anywhere else; unlike IMT-style centrists, revolutionaries don't change their positions according to their geographic location.

[A.J.]

vyborg - you are better off not entertaining trolling of this type - this issue was answered on numerous occasions over the past near 30 years. Every now and again some idiot who is completely lacking any understanding of marxism thinks he/she has found the perfect issue with which to beat the militant tendency and they inevitably end up looking like the idiots they actually are.

This is a bit rich.

I would say anyone who believes the State to be a class neutral appartus - and this social democratic 'militant tendency' flash-in-the-pan quite clearly did - are the ones "completely lacking any understanding of marxism"

[S.Artesian]

How much of an idiot are you? Not a rhetorical question, BTW.


Let me make a point for clarification - I would not have supported the withdrawl of the Task Force - but that does not equate to engaging in conflict with Argentinian troops on the Falklands.

WTF does that mean, other than your vying for the Olga Korbut award for gymnastics?


No you cannot - you cannot equate two different political circumstances and situations. The CWI supports the withdrawl of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan - and if you don't understand the difference you have made absolutely no effort to read this thread and are engaged in a blatant sectarian rant.


I'm not equating anything since I'm not extending Vyborg's answer. I'm asking him to provide those answers. Please, it's not all about you. Sorry to the blow to your narcissism.

As I asked earlier, what's your experience with the relationship of rank and file special forces troops and their officers?

Right, you're going to democratize a task force in situ from 8000 miles away rather than recall it immediately.

What a poseur you are.

[S.Artesian]

The army is made by special groups as well as ordinary detachment. you propose democratic measures for all. it will surprise you how much even the most "special" corpos can be affected by the revolutionary mood of the population. Chavez was saved by paratroopers in 2002, normally one of the most right wing corp of every army.

The army is not isolated from the working class. It reflectes precisely the consciousness of the workers. In the 70s in Italy tens of thousands of soldiers participiated in mass demo of the workers (of course with a scarf on the face).

I ask to anyone in here pretending that supporting the fascist junta was a very clever idea: if you were an argentinian worker in 1981-1982, had you preferred that a victory of a socialist programme in UK had changed the balance of forces there, hence changing the foreign policy of the country, starting from the Falklands, or had you preferred a victory of the junta that had just slaughered some tens of thousands of your comrades and wished to go on like this

You failed to answer the single, and only, important question. Do you recall the task force, or do you cover it in all your "democratic" bunting and continue the policies of the bourgeoisie? You answer that question and I'll tell you what I would have done had I been a citizen of Argentina.

[Sir Comradical]

Well Trotskyism is quite varied so I wouldn't like to paint all of them with the same brush. I doubt the Cliffite variety would have endorsed the Falklands war.

[Jolly Red Giant]

If I were an Argentinian worker, I would prefer the defeat of imperialism,
British Imperialism or Argentinian Imperialism?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Do you recall the task force, or do you cover it in all your "democratic" bunting and continue the policies of the bourgeoisie?
Argentinian imperialism good - British Imperialism bad.


You answer that question and I'll tell you what I would have done had I been a citizen of Argentina.
I have answered it - tell me what you would have done.

[Wanted Man]

I ask to anyone in here pretending that supporting the fascist junta was a very clever idea: if you were an argentinian worker in 1981-1982, had you preferred that a victory of a socialist programme in UK had changed the balance of forces there, hence changing the foreign policy of the country, starting from the Falklands, or had you preferred a victory of the junta that had just slaughered some tens of thousands of your comrades and wished to go on like this

Nobody on Revleft was an Argentinean worker in 1982, so that is perfectly irrelevant. What matters is what your tendency said, and continues to uphold.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy. The preferences of Argentinean workers were unimportant to the political situation in the UK. Moreover, the possibility of "a victory of a socialist programme in the UK" at the time was nil. Except for reformists like yourself who think that if Labour are voted into power, the UK becomes socialist.


Devrim - its a bit rich to suggest that an Irish Marxist could be 'pro-British'. The same would also apply for theMilitant - if the Militant was pro-British why would the Militant support self determination for Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

Surely, the inconsistencies in the positions of the Militant are your problem, not Devrim's? Besides, as far as I can see, the Militant's idea of "self-determination" would probably translate into support for the status quo in Northern Ireland, and collaboration with the "left" wing of Ulster unionism. In that case, it is perfectly possible for an "Irish Marxist" to be pro-British.

What all this talk basically boils down to is that, as Vanguard referred (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1724505&postcount=47) to before, in the eyes of the Militant and its successors, British workers are a bunch of lager-swilling thickos who need the Labour Party to reach a kind of gas-and-water socialism, covered in Union Jacks. Any advancement beyond that is considered unrealistic, so we might as well put a left-wing spin on things like the Falklands War, the Irish situation, prison guards and cops, etc.

[Ravachol]

The dismissal of the possibility and necessity of winning the ranks of the state forces to the side of socialism is typical of those on the left who have no understanding of the process of revolution.


Instead of relying on rethoric you might want to use arguments. Anyone who considers the armed forces as part of the working class or who considers the state a class-neutral construct is either a complete loon or doesn't have the slightest grasp of class analysis. We might as well call upon the bourgoisie to convert to communism. We are to be concerned with the working class, not the bourgoisie and it's apparatus.



Another lefty who assumes that workers automatically jump from passivity direct to marxism and revolution.


Another 'lefty' who doesn't seem to realise most people aren't motivated by idealism forced down their throat by pamfleteers flirting with the very social-democratic wing of the bourgoisie that just cut their wages and liberalised the job market. Materialism is the driving force of history, worker's don't have to jump to 'marxism and revolution', their conditions will steer them, not top-down pseudo-socialist reformism by espousing social democracy.

If you honestly believe the revolution is achieved by espousing capital's left wing, reducing the proletariat to a spectator of the realpolitikal scheming in the periphery of social democracy, you sir, are delusional.

[S.Artesian]

Argentinian imperialism good - British Imperialism bad.


I have answered it - tell me what you would have done.

We now have an answer to my previous question to JRG: How big an idiot are you?

Answer: Really big.

Evidence? He replies to a post which was directed specifically to comrade Vyborg and not to him.

Narcissism is an infantile disorder. Put your thumb back in your mouth, JRG, and suck yourself to sleep.

Comrade Vyborg, if you are so inclined, I'd appreciate your response to the post specifically directed to you.

[vyborg]

vyborg: that you call the election of a reformist party a victory for socialism just shows how reformist and detached from reality your politics are. If I were an Argentinian worker, I would prefer the defeat of imperialism, and I would prefer that had I been a worker anywhere else; unlike IMT-style centrists, revolutionaries don't change their positions according to their geographic location.

I see. So Stern was in favour of the victory of a fascist junta non only in Argentina but everywhere. My compliment. I'm a bit relieved now that we are not part of the same International anymore...

[vyborg]

You failed to answer the single, and only, important question. Do you recall the task force, or do you cover it in all your "democratic" bunting and continue the policies of the bourgeoisie? You answer that question and I'll tell you what I would have done had I been a citizen of Argentina.

What you consider important is not a universal measure. Quite the contrary I would say. JRG answered it anyway.

You are very frightened to continue the politics of UK bouregoisie and this is very wise. Unfortunately you are not aware that if you support the Argentina junta military adventure you are supporting entusiastically the politics of a fascist government at the head of an aggressive reactionart bouregoisie, and this is very bad.

[vyborg]

Anyone who considers the armed forces as part of the working class or who considers the state a class-neutral construct is either a complete loon or doesn't have the slightest grasp of class analysis.

What does it mean "part of the working class"? Is it sociology? Of course most of them are son of workers (and peasants in poor countries). Is it economy? Well their wages are very low so yes they are.
Is it a political question? Well this depends. Their role is to defend the bourgeois but they are influenced by the masses mood.

If qe study any revolution (especially Portugal 1974) we see that most of the soldiers passed with the revolution. The problem is not as simple as some genius poses it. Luckily so. If the soldiers were always to the capitalist side, revolution would be ruled out for ever

[Ravachol]

What does it mean "part of the working class"?


I think that is pretty clear. Class is a relationship with the means of production. The army is nothing more than the armed wing of the state and their sole professional activity consists of executing orders given by the bourgois state. They are the incarnation of the state monopoly on violence and protectors of private property. Obviously, this goes for professional armies, draft changes this of course.
The function of the army, however, remains that of the enforcer of the bourgois state.



Is it sociology? Of course most of them are son of workers (and peasants in poor countries).


This is utter nonsense. A factory owner being a son of a worker is still part of the bourgois. As I said, one's class is determined by one's relationship to the means of production.



Is it economy? Well their wages are very low so yes they are.


Are you for real? Low wages have nothing to do with class at all. When the entire working class has 'high wages' they are still working class. Control over the means of production is what matters. The height of wages has nothing to do with one's class.



Is it a political question? Well this depends. Their role is to defend the bourgeois but they are influenced by the masses mood.


I'm not even sure what that means, "the masses's mood". Also, who are these 'masses' you are talking about? I think we ought to be concerned with classes, not some mythical 'mass' that blurs class lines.



If qe study any revolution (especially Portugal 1974) we see that most of the soldiers passed with the revolution.


And this is relevant? The french revolution was led by a bourgois vanguard. This doesn't make it desirable, or even possible, for a proletarian revolution. I don't see what bourgois 'revolutions' or Blanquist adventures have to do with the proletarian movement.



The problem is not as simple as some genius poses it. Luckily so. If the soldiers were always to the capitalist side, revolution would be ruled out for ever

Nobody said they were 'on the capitalist side'. Defection to the proletarian side is possible and, given the right conditions even likely during an insurrectionary phase. The logical function of the army and it's soldiers, however, remains that of state enforcer. We ought to argue in favor of defection, sabotage and refusal of the draft and in favor of worker's militias. Not playing cheerleader for some national army or another.

[S.Artesian]

What you consider important is not a universal measure. Quite the contrary I would say. JRG answered it anyway.

You are very frightened to continue the politics of UK bouregoisie and this is very wise. Unfortunately you are not aware that if you support the Argentina junta military adventure you are supporting entusiastically the politics of a fascist government at the head of an aggressive reactionart bouregoisie, and this is very bad.


Come on, dont' take the piss. I just want to know do you recall the task force, yes or no?

JRG says he doesn't, but I'm not asking him, I'm asking you.

As far as continuing the critique of the British bourgeoisie, that hardly frightens me. Next to my own, there is no bourgeoisie I detest more, hold in greater contempt, than the British bourgeoisie.

I just want an answer to the question before we proceed.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Anyone who considers the armed forces as part of the working class or who considers the state a class-neutral construct is either a complete loon or doesn't have the slightest grasp of class analysis. We might as well call upon the bourgoisie to convert to communism. We are to be concerned with the working class, not the bourgoisie and it's apparatus.

of course the state forces are not class-neutral - that is not what I said.

Anyone who dismisses the ranks of the state forces out of hand is handing the bourgeoisie an enormously powerful tool to use to defeat the workers revolution. If the Bolsheviks had adopted your attitude the October revolution would have ended in a bloodbath.

After many years of trying, the ranks of the Defence forces in Ireland now have their own trade union (PDFORRA). Given that Ireland is a very minor blip on the world state, the army are used for two tasks in this country 1. to guard money being transferred to banks and 2. to break strikes. Members of PDFORRA played an active role in defeating the water charges in Ireland some years ago - Joe Higgins received a significant number of votes from rank-and-file soldiers as a result and the campaign had an impact of radicalising a section fo the armed forces most of whom live in working class communities. Recently PDFORRA have adopted a policy of refusing to carry out any direction from the government to engage in strike breaking activity. Further reflecting a radicalisation of the state forces - rank and file policeofficers have threatened (illegal) strike action over pay cuts.

Now you may dismiss out of hand the 'state apparatus' as you call them - but I would suggest to you that it is a significantly positive move to have a situation where the ranks of the state forces are actually telling the government that they cannot rely on them to carry out the bidding of the bourgeois class during the current period.

[Yehuda Stern]

Sir Comradical: the people who have started this thread don't care for the facts. They don't care that the IS/SWP, probably as big as Militant back then and much bigger today, didn't support Britain in the war. They don't care that other, smaller Trotskyist groups didn't either. All they care about is slandering Trotskyism. There is very little use in trying to convince them to be more honest.

Also, there is no Argentinian Imperialism; it is an invention of people who refuse to be consistently anti-imperialist. It is like claiming Hamas is imperialist, or Iran, or Syria, which many leftists to do to avoid taking a consistently anti-Israeli stance in its conflicts with the oppressed countries of the region. vyborg meanwhile is whining about me supporting the "fascist junta", when he forgets that Trotsky, to whom his collapsing international claims allegiance (but only since he died, of course), was as much a supporter of "Brazilian fascism" as I am of the junta. Which is to say, not at all - but in the minds of the vyborgs of this world, favoring the defeat of imperialism, even in its democratic form, is "fascist", just like it is for the imperialists.

[Ravachol]

Anyone who dismisses the ranks of the state forces out of hand is handing the bourgeoisie an enormously powerful tool to use to defeat the workers revolution. If the Bolsheviks had adopted your attitude the October revolution would have ended in a bloodbath.


Where am I advocating 'dismissing' them. I stated that during an insurrectionary phase parts of the armed forces will most likely defect and I welcome that. What I did state was the fact that they are not part of the working class, which you'd have to agree on with me.



After many years of trying, the ranks of the Defence forces in Ireland now have their own trade union (PDFORRA).


This is, again, a welcome development if the following holds:



Recently PDFORRA have adopted a policy of refusing to carry out any direction from the government to engage in strike breaking activity. Further reflecting a radicalisation of the state forces - rank and file policeofficers have threatened (illegal) strike action over pay cuts.


That's great yes. But I don't think that will always happen to unionised soldiers. Their material conditions make them dependant upon the survival of the bourgois state. They are a logical extension of it. Hence, their behavior is directed largely by the functioning of the state. We must ask ourselves: Will we be able to persuade regular soldiers who are unionised to avoid engaging in strike breaking action through idealist motivations alone? What we must avoid at all times is turning unions into petty corporatist organisations advocating narrow sectorial interests without advancing the proletarian cause.

I mean, there exist 'unions' for business owners in some countries. That kind of logic is hardly gonna advance the revolution now is it?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Also, there is no Argentinian Imperialism; it is an invention of people who refuse to be consistently anti-imperialist.
Or maybe those who refuse to acknowledge its existance as an excuse to properly apply the Marxist method before jumping on a pro-Argentianian Imperialism/ anti-British Imperialism bandwagon. Perhaps you could outline your reasoning rather than simply dismissing it.


Hamas is imperialist, or Iran, or Syria, which many leftists to do to avoid taking a consistently anti-Israeli stance in its conflicts with the oppressed countries of the region.
Plase outline who has regarded the actions of Hamas, Iran or Syria as Imperialist?


when he forgets that Trotsky, to whom his collapsing international claims allegiance (but only since he died, of course), was as much a supporter of "Brazilian fascism" as I am of the junta.
Perhaps you are unaware fo the difference between Brazil in the 1930's and Argentina at the beginning of the 1980's - the difference in the nature of each society and its role in Latin America. Maybe it would be appropriate for you to actually read what Troksky wrote about Brazil (if it wouldn't upset your sensibilities).

[Devrim]

And being a radical is about challenging fashionable ideas, since fashionable ideas, in politics at least, tend to be the ideas of the ruling class.

This is bizarre in the extreme. The RCP were an organisation who wanted to turn politics into a fashion show. There was nothing at all unfashionable about the RCP. They were the most fashionable 'communists' I have ever met.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

This is bizarre in the extreme. The RCP were an organisation who wanted to turn politics into a fashion show. There was nothing at all unfashionable about the RCP. They were the most fashionable 'communists' I have ever met.

Devrim

Actually, there was nothing at all fashionable about calling for the defeat of the British army in the Falklands war -- even among the left, from Labour leader Michael Foot to, as we have seen, 'Trotskyists'. It was one of the most unfashionable positions to hold at the time, as the entire nation seemed to be backing 'our brave boys'.

[Yehuda Stern]

Jolly Red Giant : As others have noted, there is no "pro-Argentinian / anti-British" bandwagon - most left wing groups did not support Argentina's victory in the war.
The method is simple: the united front of imperialism working to maintain its hold on the third world was the main issue, therefore genuine revolutionaries had to favor its defeat.

And I did write what Trotsky wrote about Brazil (and quoted it in various debates on the question of anti-imperialism in this forum). Perhaps it is you who should explain what these supposed (and I must say, very comfortable) differences between Brazil in the 1930s and Argentina in the 1980s are.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The method is simple: the united front of imperialism working to maintain its hold on the third world was the main issue, therefore genuine revolutionaries had to favor its defeat.
So which Imperialism were you in favour of being defeated - or do you now support the CWI position, which was for the defeat of both?


Perhaps it is you who should explain what these supposed (and I must say, very comfortable) differences between Brazil in the 1930s and Argentina in the 1980s are.
I would have thought the differences were pretty obvious (and outlined in the quotation above from 'The Rise of Militant') - are you suggesting that the writings of Trotsky should be taken as rigid formulations and simply transplanted onto every situation - or - maybe you employ the method of Trotsky and use it to analyse each situation in a concrete fashion?

[Devrim]

Actually, there was nothing at all fashionable about calling for the defeat of the British army in the Falklands war -- even among the left, from Labour leader Michael Foot to, as we have seen, 'Trotskyists'. It was one of the most unfashionable positions to hold at the time, as the entire nation seemed to be backing 'our brave boys'.

No there was nothing fashionable about calling for the defeat of the British army in the Falklands war, absurd as if calling for it had any effect on what happened*, but not irrational.

I was talking about the RCP and in general when I talked about being them fashionable. It is of course possible to 'call' for anything on a university campus, and to seem 'radical' and get a few people to follow you. A friend of mine was interested in the RCP and actually writes for 'Spiked' nowadays. I met lots of their members including the leadership. I only ever met one member who was a worker** outside of the field of education**. I don't think that it is unfair to say that the RCP's politics were based, even if not consciously, on adopting 'radical positions' to attract 'fashionable students'.

Devrim

*Here I talk about the leftist 'tactic' of calling for things. Of course it was not absurd to be against Britain's war and all communists were.

**He was a bus driver in South London

***Of course workers in education are still workers. I mention it here because I am refering to the environment that they work in.

[Idle Bandit]

Selective quoting in order to throw sh*t - nothing more and nothing less.

Other than the above quote from Militant being some sort of sick joke I'm not certain how contextualization would really help. :confused: