The Falklands vs las islas Malvinas

[sithsaber]

Choose a side

Argentine perspective- British are imperialists

British- Islands inhabitants pro british

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

How about the perspective that . . .

a. The islands should become an independent workers' state.
b. All of Argentina becomes a workers' state.
c. Britain should abandon the island and give the claim over it back to Argentina so there can be one united Argentine working class with the same oppressors to overthrow.
d. Fuck Margaret Thatcher.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Chose a side? Why? Is that meaningful?

World revolution, petty national squabbles be damned.

[ellipsis]

moved to learning.

[Q]

a. The islands should become an independent workers' state

That is a rather ridiculous statement. There are about 3200 people living on those islands, about 90% of which are British or from British decent. That does not make a viable workers village, let alone a workers state.

The Argentinian claims on those islands have only flimsy historical grounds. The first reliable sighting of the islands, by Europeans, was in 1600 by Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert, naming it the Sebald Islands. It was uninhabited at this time.

Only in 1764 was a first settlement established, by the French. In 1767 this settlement was transferred to Spanish colonial control. The first British settlement dates from 1766, but they were driven off by the Spanish in 1770. However, the last Spanish settlers withdrew in 1811.

Then a new settlement was founded in 1828 with the permission of both Argentina and Britain, but as far as I'm aware was not in the name of either of those countries. This settlement was presumably destroyed in 1831 by the USS Lexington.

It was only in November 1832 that Argentina sent someone to establish a penal colony on the islands. But this attempt failed and the following January the islands had a British presence again, with a naval base established in 1834 and raised to colony status in 1840, which has continued ever since.

So, the current Falklanders clearly present a strong historical case. Furthermore, we should view the Argentinian claims for what they are: They want a strategic point of control over Cape Horn (the same reason the UK persists in its claims).

What does this mean for communists? In my view, we should support the right on self-determination of the Falklanders. Currently, this right is protected by the fact that it is a colony of Britain. What we should aim for, in my view, is a federative republic of Latin-America, where the Falkland islands are a voluntary part, as equals, not as ruled over.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why would we want to choose a 'national' side?

One can oppose, and indeed abhor, the crass political war instigated by Thatcher and her cronies to help her win the 1983 election without supporting Argentina or any other nation-state.

[gorillafuck]

What does this mean for communists? In my view, we should support the right on self-determination of the Falklanders. Currently, this right is protected by the fact that it is a colony of Britain. What we should aim for, in my view, is a federative republic of Latin-America, where the Falkland islands are a voluntary part, as equals, not as ruled over.I hope you realize that what you are saying is justification for the falklands war.

[l'Enfermé]

Argentina or Argentineans have absolutely no claim on the Falkland Islands, and the population is almost completely British and pretty much no one there wants to be annexed by Argentina.

And the Falklands War was started by Argentina when the Argentine military invaded and occupied the Islands, not by Thatcher. The fact that the UK is a stronger capitalist country then Argentina doesn't mean that we should support it...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I hope you realize that what you are saying is justification for the falklands war.

He doesn't care, as long as it fits nicely into his theoretical worldview!

[Q]

I hope you realize that what you are saying is justification for the falklands war.

Thatcher had other political objectives than simply defending the Falklanders. The nationalist rouse supported her reelection and, like I said earlier, the Falklands holds a strategic point in international shipping, at a time when the Argentinian regime couldn't be fully counted on by international capital.

I do agree that the protection by the UK, as it is a colony of it, is not in proletarian interests, as the war pointed out. This is why I pointed to the internationalist alternative of a federative republic of Latin-America.

If a new war was to break out (an unlikely scenario right now, but let's do a thought-experiment), which "side" should we pick? The answer is not that difficult in my view and should be based on working class solidarity both on the Latin-American mainland (against any aggressive annexation) and in the UK (against imperialist scheming and nationalist rhetoric), for the right of self-determination of the Falklanders. This logic then implies the socialist political alternative and, therefore, also the need of the working class movement organising for such a political project.

So no, what I said is not a justification of the war, but the complete opposite. You're just reading what you want to read.

[Igor]

It's basically a case of Argentine imperial interests v. British imperial interests, so sides are not really something leftists should be taking. Falkland islanders don't have to be controlled from Buenos Aires or London.

[NoPasaran1936]

Choose a side?

Both nations are using the islands as a means of rising nationalist feelings to gain support as both countries aren't exactly doing too well economically.

What about those who live there?

[Aurora]

How about not choosing the side of either British capital or Argentine capital recognizing that neither side gives a fuck about the people who live there and no matter who starts it there is absolutely no solution that benefits the working class through imperialist war.
We should take a position against our own capitalists.

[l'Enfermé]

Also, what hasn't been mentioned in the thread is that the area around the Falklands has quite a bit of oil, which is the leading cause of the current controversy.

[lombas]

Also, what hasn't been mentioned in the thread is that the area around the Falklands has quite a bit of oil, which is the leading cause of the current controversy.

Oil that will be quite hard to get, and won't be able to provide for more than a couple of hundred workers in the next decade or so.

[bricolage]

yeah it's much more about raising the spectre of patriotism in a time of deep social crisis than about oil. exactly as it was the last time this shit was going on.
i've never known a more clear cut case of an intra-bourgeois dispute and any leftists taking the side of either state haven't got a clue.

[Libertador]

1.) Falklanders have lived on the islands for 178 years.
2.) Falklanders have more of a right than anybody to decide their own fates.
3.) Falklanders have consistently and democratically opted to remain a dependency of the United Kingdom.
4.) ...And British citizens they should remain.