Las Malvinas/Falklands

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/04/201243035319985.html

Both countries being colonialist in the way they assert their claims over the island? Basically, it was a way for British and Argentine Bourgeois rulers to preserve their power in 1982, and it seems like it's the same thing 30 years ago. Both countries are colonialist-Britain took over half the world and imposed a culturally and racially supremacist system on the territory it took, and Argentina annexed Patagonia by force and "cleansed" it of many natives, so the two countries using that accusation against each other now is weak. And both have actually leveled that charge against the other.

Why are some Leftist groups in Argentina focusing on this issue and not taking on the flaws of Capitalism represented in both Argentina and Britain? Really, the working classes in Britain, the Falklands and Argentina should be working together, no? How do Leftists in Argentina hope to make the people of the Falklands, who are currently largely loyal to the UK, want Argentine sovereignty, and without that, how can they assert Argentine sovereignty without the agreement of the local inhabitants? Meanwhile, it is obvious to anybody with half a brain that Britain is exploiting its claim over those islands to make massive concessions to oil businesses. There is a clear financial motive for the British state in all this, which gets ignored by their rhetoric. Argentinians deserve to benefit from the oil reserves that are off their coast.


It seems like this is one of those issues that bourgeois nationalists use to unite the Left and Right behind them, or at least the portions of those two blocks within their nation who are susceptible to jingoism. This is petty bourgeois nationalism dressed up as anti-imperialism. I made a threat about it before, more or less saying the same thing, but this issue keeps coming up in the news. Any other thoughts?

[Os Cangaceiros]

"two bald men fighting over a comb"

[MotherCossack]

i remember the falklands war...
it turned a middling to unpopular maggie thatcher into the hugely successful iron lady who went on to reek havoc....it was horrible....
war is a great election winner ... the ignorant people love a bit of jingoistic escapism.... it is like a cure- for- all- ills for governments....
no matter that it is expensive in cost and lives....
no matter that it is a imperialistic outrage....
no matter that we have no right.....
you really can sell a lot of bad shit to the proletariat....
if you know how and have the strong arm of the establishment slobbering and wagging its tail in unconditional support.
and no matter that the enlightened few see through the lies and inconsistancies.....
somehow our governments in the west , the champions of democracy.......
well they always avoid being called to account.

i am ashamed to say that i quite enjoyed the falklands war.... at school, bored, and a teenager.... it were right exciting.... although i have never admitted it till now.... i knew it was wrong.... and hated thatcher throughout.....
maybe it is an indication of how depressing the 80s was under the evil one.

as to the malvinas.... it is an absurd notion.... to think that we have any right to them. ...
why would we? it is right over there..... we are right over here..... they are closer to argentina by quite a large margin.... i dont get it!....
maybe the isle of wight should be presented to Iraq or afganistan.... to compensate for loss of life. in illegal wars .....makes more sense. we would not like it.... so why should they

[Yazman]

I can't say I support either side really as neither really has a straightforward claim, I think the best thing would be for negotiations between the sides to resume and continue until they can come to a mutual agreement because this shit won't go away otherwise.

The status quo, and the miniature cold war that is ongoing and has been escalating lately, is bad for the Islanders, bad for Argentines, and bad for British people. No good can come out of these chickenhawks and their brinksmanship.

I also think that to a certain extent these sorts of disputes really speak to the stupidity of national borders.

[Manic Impressive]

In historical fact the "British administration" of the Islands was itself an "occupation". The British settlement of the Falklands was contested by France, Spain and Argentina, from the latter half of the 18th century. The Spanish were there until 1806, when the Argentinians threw them out and in 1833 a British force arrived and, politely but firmly, ejected the Argentians. The Prime Minister of the day made it plain that the British ruling class would not allow " . . . any other state to exercise a right as derived from Spain, which Britain had denied to Spain herself". This has never been accepted by any Argentinian government and, at the very least, they have registered an annual protest. Children there are taught about the perfidy of the British over the Falklands, rather as British children have been taught about the Germans, French, Japanese, Argentinians . . In 1851 a Royal Charter—the official sanction to the exploitation of the resources and the people—was granted to the Falkland Islands Company and since then the Islands' economy has been dominated by that company. The FIC owns nearly half the land, a third of the sheep (wool is the Islands' only product of any significance) and employs over one sixth of the population. It controls the bank, the dock and the supermarket. In 1972, after a brief spell of ownership by an offshoot of Slater Walker, the FIC was taken over by Charrington Industrial Holdings, which has big interests in fuel distribution and was probably attracted by the FIC stake in the islands' transport and warehousing and the possible presence of oil. Argentinian investors almost pulled off a stealthy take-over in 1977 but this was thwarted, partly by the Foreign Office. Charrington seemed shaken by the experience, and declared that they would never sell out to a foreign concern. Soon afterwards they were themselves taken over by Coalite, a company based in Derbyshire. Through all these machinations the workers of the Falklands plodded on, in the bare, windswept landscape, raising sheep and turning out the surplus value for whichever bunch of capitalists was appropriating the wealth they had produced.
Those workers are in the main descendants of the Scottish, English and Welsh who went to the Falklands after 1851. Most families are tenants of the FIC and live in tied cottages which they must leave when they are too old to be exploitable any longer. Until recently the majority of members of the Legislative Council were nominated by the British government. If the Falklanders prefer this kind of feudal paternalism it can only be because they think—with good reason—that that life under Argentinian military rule has even less to offer them. A final irony is that, if any of them tries to take refuge in Britain they will have no automatic right of entry. The Foreign Office has promised them special concessions but, although they hold British passports, they are legally excluded because they are defined as non-patrials under the 1971 Immigration Act.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/turn-right-eighties/doing-bulldog-thing (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/turn-right-eighties/doing-bulldog-thing:cool:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I didn't know about the whole lack of automatic entry thing. Fucking bullshit, why do that?

[Manic Impressive]

I don't know if that's still the case but it was in 1982. It may have changed it may not. The reason is probably the same reason that territories that were a part of the empire had British passports such as Jamaica while it was still a territory, they had British passports but were not allowed automatic entry. I'd assume for similar reasons.

Edit:

None of the overseas territories has its own nationality status, and all citizens are classed as British Overseas Territories citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories_citizen) (BOTC). They do however, have legislative independence over immigration, and holding the status of a BOTC does not automatically give a person a right to abode in any of the territories, as it depends on the territory's immigration laws. A territory may issue Belonger status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belonger_status) to allow a person classed as a BOTC to reside in the territory that they have close links with. Non-BOTC citizens may acquire Belonger status in order to reside in a particular territory (and may subsequently become naturalised BOTC if they wish).
Historically, most inhabitants of the British Empire held the status of British subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject), which was usually lost upon independence. From 1949, British subjects in the United Kingdom and the remaining colonies became citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law). However changes in British immigration and nationality law between 1962 and 1983 saw the creation of a separate British Dependent Territories citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories_citizen) with effect from January, 1983. Citizens in most territories were stripped of full British citizenship. This was mainly to prevent a mass exodus of the citizens of Hong Kong to the UK before the agreed handover to China in 1997. Exception was made for the Falkland Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands), which had been invaded in 1982 by Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina). Full British citizenship was soon returned to the people of Gibraltar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar) due to their friction with Spain.
However, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories_Act_2002) replaced dependent territory citizenship with British Overseas Territories citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories_citizen), and restored full British citizenship to all BOTCs except those from the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia). This restored to BOTCs the right to reside in the UK.
British citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law) however, do not have an automatic right to reside in any of the Overseas Territories. Some territories prohibit immigration, and any visitors are required to seek the permission of the territory's government to live in the territory. As they are used primarily as military bases, Ascension Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island) and the British Indian Ocean Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory) do not allow visitors to the territory unless on official business.

[dodger]

"two bald men fighting over a comb"

Indeed that fully sums up British peoples attitude then and now, a pal was grabbed by PR's and told you can be on TV...soon joined by a fleet of black cabs ferrying people from Tory central offices. Handed union jacks. My dopey friend asked if this was tv or film ......He soon found out it was a blockbuster Thatcher prequel to the Armada. "cheer louder". Being England glasses of Sherry were passed around...the lower orders had tea in plastic cups and cherry cake. "Cameras and lights! A cross was sprayed and the cast(adoring subjects) were corralled into an arrow-head formation behind the cross. the camera angles sorted....Thatchers appears. In a performance worthy of 'good queen Bess' at Dover. On my 24" screen it looked like a scene of thousands, imagine what they could do now with wonderful computer graphics. She spoke briefly to a group of 'extras' afterwards "something to tell your grand-children!" Modest as ever. I see now what they mean "bribed by crumbs of imperialism" I said you are fucking hopeless...."cuppa and slice of cherry madeira. Is that all it took?" Something to tell your grand-children indeed!

Port Stanley Liberated!

[TheGeekySocialist]

to be fair to Argentina, I don't think there government has even suggested going to war over this, in fact I recall them going to the UN and stating clearly they did not want war.

the UK government on the other hand has been milking this like their own cock when they are horny. jingoistic propaganda here from ministers and MP's and the media is disgusting, they are using this to ramp up Unionism and Militarism.

the UK government is actually refusing outright to even talk about the Islands with Argentina...whereas Argentina want's to have talks through the UN (IIRC)

[Agathor]

to be fair to Argentina, I don't think there government has even suggested going to war over this, in fact I recall them going to the UN and stating clearly they did not want war.

the UK government on the other hand has been milking this like their own cock when they are horny. jingoistic propaganda here from ministers and MP's and the media is disgusting, they are using this to ramp up Unionism and Militarism.

the UK government is actually refusing outright to even talk about the Islands with Argentina...whereas Argentina want's to have talks through the UN (IIRC)

They're right to refuse to discuss the matter, at the UN or anywhere else. The Falklanders have the final say over their sovereignty and they say that they want to remain a British territory.

It's interesting how quickly the left's interest in self-determination disappears when it benefits the Yanqui imperialists and their allies.

[dodger]

Picked up these few words of sanity..........

The Falkland Islands: a long way from being British

WORKERS, APR 2012 ISSUE

About 3,000 people live in a group of islands in the southwest Atlantic, just above the Antarctic Circle, propped up by Britain. The economy is based on fishing, agriculture (with sheep farming predominant), tourism and latterly oil exploration. The islands are claimed by Argentina, which calls them “las Malvinas”.

It is unclear who first truly discovered the Falkland Islands, though they attracted attention in the 16th and 17th centuries when European powers began their imperial expansion. Spanish navigator and explorer Ferdinand Magellan may have been the first to find the islands on his 1519/21 expedition, though this is disputed. Other sightings of the islands were made by the Portuguese, Dutch and British in the 1500s.

Barren

By the late 1600s Britain and France had re-discovered the barren and still uninhabited islands as their ships were sailing in the area. Britain named them the Falkland Islands while France called them Les Isles Nouvelles or Les Iles Malouines. The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 ratified Spain’s control over the territories and seas of the Americas.

In 1764 it was France that founded a first settlement at Port Louis, though it made no formal claim. In 1765, a British expedition explored and claimed the islands, and a British settlement was founded at Port Egmont in 1776 introducing cattle, goats, sheep and pigs to the islands. But in 1767, France ceded Port Louis to Spain (which it renamed Puerto Soledad) in exchange for compensation.

Some maintain that as a result Spain occupied and administered the Malvinas from 1767 until Argentinian independence and national liberation from Spain in 1816; others say that Spain only had control over Puerto Soledad. Spain withdrew its governor in 1806 while maintaining its claims. The remaining Spanish-speaking settlers withdrew in 1811, though more arrived from the United Provinces of the River Plate in the 1820s and an Argentine penal settlement in 1832. Even a United States warship arrived in 1831, though nothing permanent ensued.

In 1833 British forces returned to the islands, which became a coaling station for the British navy. From 1840 a permanent British colony was established, and the islands became a strategic point for navigation around Cape Horn for the British Empire. Between 1931 and 1982 neglect saw the population there decline from 2,392 people to 1,800. It’s risen now to 3,000, a number swollen by military garrisons and seekers after possible oil reserves in the waters around the islands.

Argentina says its right to possession of the islands stems from being heirs of the Spanish empire, as well as territorial proximity. Argentina pressed its claim for sovereignty over the islands with renewed vigour in the second half of the 20th century.

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to a conclusion, mainly because the islanders wanted the islands to remain British territory. But the talks led in 1971 to the islands’ first air link, with a service from Argentina to Stanley, the islands’ capital, (which operated until 1982). Later the Argentine national oil and gas company was given a monopoly over the supply of the islands’ energy needs.

Invasion

On 2 April 1982, Argentina’s military junta, hoping to divert growing internal opposition, ordered their armed forces to invade the Falkland Islands, no doubt encouraged by Britain’s reduction in military capacity in the South Atlantic.

Thatcher’s government sent an expeditionary force to retake the islands, leading to the Falklands War. Fierce naval and air battles and a land campaign resulted in the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen, as well as 3 civilian Falklanders – from “friendly” fire. The Argentine forces surrendered on 14 June 1982. By 1981 the Thatcher government had become deeply unpopular, but the chauvinism and phony nationalism of the Falklands War brought her an unlikely khaki election victory in 1983 that allowed her to go ahead with her vicious war against British workers’ jobs, wages and unions.

After the war, Britain increased its military presence on the islands and constructed an airport, RAF Mount Pleasant, as cuts to the navy ruled out a repetition of another naval task force. Although Britain and Argentina resumed diplomatic relations in 1990, no further negotiations on sovereignty have taken place.

A sensible solution

The civilian governments of Argentina continue to assert that the Falkland Islands are Argentinian territory and will not relinquish their claim. Since 1994 it is even part of the Argentine Constitution, with patriotic sentiments enduring rather than ebbing away. In addition, the countries of Latin America have agreed to support a boycott of Falkland-flagged ships in their ports. The possibility of finding oil fields in the area will only be a complicating factor and increase tensions further.

Britain’s government needs to live in the real world and start reflecting the interests of over 60 million people actually living here – not just the nostalgia of 3000 posturing on some far-flung islands. Britain needs to live on amicable terms with Argentina and Latin America, a growing area for trade and development. Britain cannot continue to hide behind the dubious interpretation of the doctrines of “prescription” (that sovereignty of a territory can be established by peaceful occupation over a period of time) and “self-determination”.

In effect, the Falklanders are a small group of introspective pariahs kept afloat by an expensive imperial lifeline. We should jettison this aspect of our colonial past. Negotiations with Argentina could still take place to create transitional arrangements, as we did in Hong Kong, that would protect the ability of the current Falklanders to live and prosper there, if they so wish.


http://www.workers.org.uk/features/feat_0412/falklands.html


*******************************

[dodger]

They're right to refuse to discuss the matter, at the UN or anywhere else. The Falklanders have the final say over their sovereignty and they say that they want to remain a British territory.

It's interesting how quickly the left's interest in self-determination disappears when it benefits the Yanqui imperialists and their allies.

Dodger is not up for fighting over a few rocks in the Atlantic. As was said eloquently "two old bald men fighting over a comb"...says it all for me. In short I don't care tuppence what happens to the Falkland Islanders or their bloody sheep. Pompous phrases aren't worth one Tommy's Testicle.

[Manic Impressive]

It's interesting how quickly the left's interest in self-determination disappears when it benefits the Yanqui imperialists and their allies.
Yes I agree the workers must be free to be oppressed by the people of their own choosing. It's despicable that some johnny foreigner wants to come over there and exploit those poor workers when we have more than enough capitalists capable of doing that ourselves. PROTECT OUR BRITISH BOURGEOISIES RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THEM. Because even though they are exploiting us at least they are the same nationality and race as us and that makes a huge difference because.....urm.....

[Yazman]

Dodger, could you please give a source on that article? Because you didn't bother to provide a link and I wouldn't mind having access to it.

Also I disagree with the author on a few points. I don't feel a comparison to Hong Kong is realistic or reasonable, since the handover of governance in Hong Kong wasn't a matter of choice for the British government. They had a lease and were obligated to return it. Not to mention there were people who had lived there for thousands of years before the British ever gained their temporary rule there. The Falklands/Malvinas are hardly comparable; The British have unequivocal control over the islands and are not obligated by the terms of any international agreement to return control to any state. They did not gain control over it by way of agreement and there were really no 'original inhabitants' of the islands in the first place, merely a series of failed colonies from different countries for short periods of time in the years prior to the British occupation that resulted in the current population.

The UK government's refusal to negotiate and militarisation of the region is irresponsible and just pointlessly endangers people's lives for the sake of natural resources (especially now where you have jingoistic assholes advocating war and, I've even seen people online seriously advocating bombing the Argentine mainland), and the Argentine government's refusal to take anything less than complete control and sovereignty over the islands (not to mention history of military action themselves) is just as bad.

I do think negotiations should occur although I don't necessarily favour any particular group, as long as the situation can be resolved with mutual agreement by all parties. Then we can finally move on and no longer have people's lives endangered for the sake of hawkish bureaucrats.

Edit: I just noticed you put the link, thanks a lot dodger :D

[ed miliband]

some interesting photos of recent anti-british street protests in argentina:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/argentinians-burn-an-effigy-of-prince-william

anyone know what groups are involved in this sort of thing? parts of the argentinian left?

[ed miliband]

oh i should have read the introductory article rather than look at the photos (:blushing:)



To commemorate the war, veterans and politicians gathered at the cenotaph in Buenos Aires to lay wreaths, whilst down at the British embassy another group of people remembered the war a little differently. The ultra left-wing and anti-imperialist Patriotic Revolutionary Movement – or "Quebracho (http://www.quebracho.org.ar/inicio/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=54)" – gathered at the embassy and burnt effigies of Prince William and the Union Jack, attacked HSBC and fought with the police.


anyone know anything about these chumps?

[dodger]

You make fair points YAZMAN, certainly not only the Islanders themselves but all interests would be served by negotiation. Not least the British taxpayer. The original proposals by the Argentine military government at a time when Imperial neglect was the norm, amounted to a juicy bribe. Instead we had invasion. Having witnessed, since a toddler, our being given the bums rush from every part of the globe I had thought that would be the end of the matter. I miscalculated, badly, good old Uncle Sam came to the rescue. Without American assistance there could not have been any hope of retaking the Islands. The rest is history as they say. At least the demise of the Argentine military Junta was hastened although its end was never in doubt judging by the mass working class action that preceded the war. Lets hope career diplomats make the running and not politicians like Chris Patten last Governor of Hong Kong. Cannot fathom why he was crying like a baby when the Union Jack was lowered for the last time. British interests are still making a killing without the dammed expense of a colony. They could be doing likewise in the Falklands.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

dodger-you're right about the militarization of the issue. The jingoistic governments are able to easily manipulate voters with it. To Kirchner's credit she has not militarized the conflict (although she may be less able to do so than the Junta 30 years ago), while the British government has been sending all sorts of heavy hardware to the islands. That is to be expected from a bunch of Tory nationalists of course.

Ultimately, the people there do have a right to determine which country they live under, however the way that their country of choice defends that claim is absurd. A negotiated settlement that preserves the sovereignty of the people without leading to an Imperialistic war would be ideal, however the British government itself seems to be doing a disservice to the locals by not even negotiating on any of the issues. It is obvious that Argentina is interested in, among other things, the oil concessions around the islands. This is typical-instead of making practical sacrifices with the people of Argentina, the British government actually heightens the war talk and sends a nuclear sub down to the Falklands. Cameron probably wants to repeat Thatcher's success, seeing how he is floundering on every other issue. Perhaps he thinks that provoking then defeating "the argies" will help him gain the blind nationalistic support he needs to take on institutions like the NHS?

I think we should remember too that at the time that those islands were settled, the Argentinians had yet to take Patagonia, which they only took by killing off many indigenous people. If it weren't for Argentina's period of brutal colonialism, it would actually not have any territory anywhere near the Falklands to begin with. I would like to know what all the Leftist groups protesting think about that fact, and why they think the Argentinian government would be less exploitative and nicer to the current inhabitants of the island than the British government, considering they are both bourgeois capitalist governments. By getting engaged with this issue, aren't Argentinians allowing their exploitative, colonialist and capitalist country to exploit them using jingoism and nationalism to preserve their power, just the way they did under the junta?

[Manic Impressive]

well they call themselves a revolutionary patriotic movement and they're marxist-leninist. Do you need any more explanation :p

http://www.quebracho.org.ar/inicio/

[¿Que?]

I was in Argentina during the war and military rule. It's very difficult when you're thrown into a war against an enemy you despise, but by a government you probably despise just as much if not more. As has been mentioned, Las Malvinas has always been contested territory. I do find it troubling that anyone would use the self-determination argument in this case. I suppose we could use that same argument for Israel and it would sound just as ridiculous. Sometimes "leftists" surprise me.

Ultimately, it is a matter of what bourgeois government rules the islands. I think the answer is simple. I would rather Argentina control them than Britain, since Argentina is a disadvantaged and economically suffering nation as compared to Britain.

[Grenzer]

It's interesting how quickly the left's interest in self-determination disappears when it benefits the Yanqui imperialists and their allies.

Really?

From what I've observed, the problem tends to be the opposite. I think half of the tankies on here would rather take a bullet in the head for the Kim dynasty than to have it fall to a legitimate workers' revolution.

Self-determination in the context of nations is a bourgeois concept; I care nothing about the rights of bourgeois to hold dictatorship over a people. Apparently you do, but that doesn't make you anything other than a liberal and a reformist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I was in Argentina during the war and military rule. It's very difficult when you're thrown into a war against an enemy you despise, but by a government you probably despise just as much if not more. As has been mentioned, Las Malvinas has always been contested territory. I do find it troubling that anyone would use the self-determination argument in this case. I suppose we could use that same argument for Israel and it would sound just as ridiculous. Sometimes "leftists" surprise me.


The Brits who lived on the islands have done so for many generations unlike the Israeli settlers, and there is no significant indigenous population, so the cases are different. Even so, if you accept your example as accurate, a "worker's democracy" in the middle east would include Israelis and Palestinians alike, and "worker's democracy" in the Malvinas/Falklands would have to draw in the Anglo population as well as the Argentine population. The Leftist struggle should not be about Anglo or Hispanic chauvinism, which the nationalists on both sides of this particular struggle seem to extol.


Ultimately, it is a matter of what bourgeois government rules the islands. I think the answer is simple. I would rather Argentina control them than Britain, since Argentina is a disadvantaged and economically suffering nation as compared to Britain.The Argentine people should benefit from the oil reserves off the coast, but the islands themselves have barely any economic utility. Either way though, this squabble does not change the economic order in the Falklands, Argentina or Britain. Argentine Leftists should be fighting for working class rule in all three places, instead of Argentine or British bourgeois rule in the Malvinas/Falklands.

Making this an issue of Argentine vs Falklander/Brit merely makes it harder to build solidarity between the working classes of both countries. The position of both the British and Argentine governments are counter to internationalism, and this is to be expected.

[¿Que?]

The Brits who lived on the islands have done so for many generations unlike the Israeli settlers, and there is no significant indigenous population, so the cases are different. Even so, if you accept your example as accurate, a "worker's democracy" in the middle east would include Israelis and Palestinians alike, and "worker's democracy" in the Malvinas/Falklands would have to draw in the Anglo population as well as the Argentine population. The Leftist struggle should not be about Anglo or Hispanic chauvinism, which the nationalists on both sides of this particular struggle seem to extol.
Well, then, where exactly do we draw the line. 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, you get the idea. I agree in the whole, "woerker's democracy" concept in theory, but I have my doubts about how it would play out in practice.


The Argentine people should benefit from the oil reserves off the coast, but the islands themselves have barely any economic utility. Either way though, this squabble does not change the economic order in the Falklands, Argentina or Britain. Argentine Leftists should be fighting for working class rule in all three places, instead of Argentine or British bourgeois rule in the Malvinas/Falklands.
And of the indegenous struggles? There are certainly issues to be addressed between ecological struggles, in Latin America and even the US, that cannot fit so simply into a "working class rule" paradigm.



Making this an issue of Argentine vs Falklander/Brit merely makes it harder to build solidarity between the working classes of both countries. The position of both the British and Argentine governments are counter to internationalism, and this is to be expected.
Fair enough. But making it an issue of nationalism versus internationalism is equally reductionist.

[Cencus]

All this is is two sides who's economies are up shit creak stirring up pointless jingoism to detract from troubles closer to home.

[dodger]

All this is is two sides who's economies are up shit creak stirring up pointless jingoism to detract from troubles closer to home.

Thank you Cencus, I am far from home, I do hope there are many more that share your sentiments. In all events, well said brother!

[TheGeekySocialist]

They're right to refuse to discuss the matter, at the UN or anywhere else. The Falklanders have the final say over their sovereignty and they say that they want to remain a British territory.

It's interesting how quickly the left's interest in self-determination disappears when it benefits the Yanqui imperialists and their allies.

yeah antagonising the Argentinians does more to protect people there than negotiating on things like trade and oil from the island with Argentina, all hail the wondrous British ruling class for "protecting" people by increasing the risk of conflict on their homeland :rolleyes:

[A Marxist Historian]

Yes I agree the workers must be free to be oppressed by the people of their own choosing. It's despicable that some johnny foreigner wants to come over there and exploit those poor workers when we have more than enough capitalists capable of doing that ourselves. PROTECT OUR BRITISH BOURGEOISIES RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THEM. Because even though they are exploiting us at least they are the same nationality and race as us and that makes a huge difference because.....urm.....

If "self determination" is the issue in the Falklands, then the islands should be turned over to the Animal Liberation Front, as the vast majority of the population of the islands is sheep.

I mean, come on, 3,000 people? And most of them British soldiers?

At the time of the Falklands War, there were only 1200, which is less than the number of people attending my local high school.

No, these are a bunch of worthless rocks, and fighting a war over them was absurd.

Maggie won, and was strengthened to take on and defeat the coal miners next. The Argentine Junta lost, and was soon thereafter overthrown, to the great benefit of the people of Argentina.

This is the extreme example of the Leninist principle of revolutionary defeatism. Winning the Malvinas war was a terrible thing for the British working class. Losing the Falklands war was the best thing that could possibly have happened for the working people of Argentina.

And for those fools who think this was an "anti-imperialist" war on the part of the monstrously murderous Argentine military dictatorship, well, let me point out that the imperialist power in that part of the world ain't Britain, it's the USA.

The Reagan administration was divided over that one, with Secretary of State Alexander Plague actually wanting to support Argentina, on the grounds that he liked the Argentine form of government better than the British. But wiser heads overruled him, as England was a more important US ally than Argentina.

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

The Reagan administration was divided over that one, with Secretary of State Alexander Plague actually wanting to support Argentina, on the grounds that he liked the Argentine form of government better than the British. But wiser heads overruled him, as England was a more important US ally than Argentina.
you got any more information on this?

[ed miliband]

If "self determination" is the issue in the Falklands, then the islands should be turned over to the Animal Liberation Front, as the vast majority of the population of the islands is sheep.

I mean, come on, 3,000 people? And most of them British soldiers?

At the time of the Falklands War, there were only 1200, which is less than the number of people attending my local high school.

No, these are a bunch of worthless rocks, and fighting a war over them was absurd.

Maggie won, and was strengthened to take on and defeat the coal miners next. The Argentine Junta lost, and was soon thereafter overthrown, to the great benefit of the people of Argentina.

This is the extreme example of the Leninist principle of revolutionary defeatism. Losing the Malvinas war was a terrible thing for the British working class. Losing the Falklands war was the best thing that could possibly have happened for the working people of Argentina.

And for those fools who think this was an "anti-imperialist" war on the part of the monstrously murderous Argentine military dictatorship, well, let me point out that the imperialist power in that part of the world ain't Britain, it's the USA.

The Reagan administration was divided over that one, with Secretary of State Alexander Plague actually wanting to support Argentina, on the grounds that he liked the Argentine form of government better than the British. But wiser heads overruled him, as England was a more important US ally than Argentina.

-M.H.-


manic impressive was sarcastically responding to agathor's passive aggressive trolling

[A Marxist Historian]

you got any more information on this?

I thought this was well known? Of course, this is all 30 years later, I was around then and reading the newspapers. Haig made no secret of his preference for the Argentine junta, this was publicly discussed.

Actually, just a couple days ago the Wall Street Journal wrote about this, just as if this was some kind of big discovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454.html

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

manic impressive was sarcastically responding to agathor's passive aggressive trolling

No doubt. I could have responded to anybody actually, probably should have responded directly to the OP, since I was basically responding to this whole oddball reformist-pacifistic thread, on which Manic is far from the worst offender.

-M.H.-

[bricolage]

I thought this was well known?
meh, I wasn't born at the time and it's not something I've done much research into. anyway thanks for the link.

[Agathor]

yeah antagonising the Argentinians does more to protect people there than negotiating on things like trade and oil from the island with Argentina, all hail the wondrous British ruling class for "protecting" people by increasing the risk of conflict on their homeland :rolleyes:

A strawman, sarcastic quotes and a rolleye smiley all in the same sentence. You people are comically thick and repetitive.

Who is antagonizing the Argentinians? The Argentinians brought this ridiculous argument up.

[Agathor]

Yes I agree the workers must be free to be oppressed by the people of their own choosing. It's despicable that some johnny foreigner wants to come over there and exploit those poor workers when we have more than enough capitalists capable of doing that ourselves. PROTECT OUR BRITISH BOURGEOISIES RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THEM. Because even though they are exploiting us at least they are the same nationality and race as us and that makes a huge difference because.....urm.....

That makes a huge difference to the Falkland Islanders, and their opinion is the only one that matters.

And the BRITISH BOURGEOISIE don't have much of a presence in the Falklands. Their economy consists of shepherding and fishing.

[Manic Impressive]

That makes a huge difference to the Falkland Islanders, and their opinion is the only one that matters.

And the BRITISH BOURGEOISIE don't have much of a presence in the Falklands. Their economy consists of shepherding and fishing.
I guess you missed this
Argentinian investors almost pulled off a stealthy take-over in 1977 but this was thwarted, partly by the Foreign Office. Charrington seemed shaken by the experience, and declared that they would never sell out to a foreign concern. Soon afterwards they were themselves taken over by Coalite, a company based in Derbyshire.No obviously no bourgeoisie here
www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/index.php?section=0- (http://www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/index.php?section=0-)

You also seem not to know that there's been massive oil reserves found off the Eastern coast of the Falklands. which has been suspected to bet there for a long time. No interest for the bourgeois here obviously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14925620

[Orlov]

If the British occupying Malvinas have an issue they should leave Malvinas. They don't belong there and will never belong there.

[Agathor]

I guess you missed thisNo obviously no bourgeoisie here
www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/index.php?section=0- (http://www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/index.php?section=0-)

You also seem not to know that there's been massive oil reserves found off the Eastern coast of the Falklands. which has been suspected to bet there for a long time. No interest for the bourgeois here obviously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14925620

Pay. Attention. I didn't say there wasn't a bourgeosie. I said the British bourgeoisie didn't have much of a presence. There's a bourgeoisie but it's largely native. And much of the economy is petit-bourgeoisie; almost all of the fishermen for instance.

As for the oil - there's much less of that than was initially hoped.

[Manic Impressive]

Pay. Attention. I didn't say there wasn't a bourgeosie. I said the British bourgeoisie didn't have much of a presence. There's a bourgeoisie but it's largely native. And much of the economy is petit-bourgeoisie; almost all of the fishermen for instance.

As for the oil - there's much less of that than was initially hoped.
The company may be called The Falklands Island company but it has always been a British owned company which is now floated on the London stock exchange. It is owned by the British bourgeoisie.

But regardless of which bourgeoisie owns the company or has the rights to the oil or whatever else why should British or Argentinian workers be asked to kill each other in order to protect those interests?

[Lefties]

The English deserve to have the falklands. The Argentines should except the English are above them in terms of political stability and a Capitalist nation will be better off in controlling any territory.

[A Marxist Historian]

The company may be called The Falklands Island company but it has always been a British owned company which is now floated on the London stock exchange. It is owned by the British bourgeoisie.

But regardless of which bourgeoisie owns the company or has the rights to the oil or whatever else why should British or Argentinian workers be asked to kill each other in order to protect those interests?

Since I was unkind enough to direct my previous annoyed rant at Manic, I should say that I couldn't agree more with this comment.

-M.H.-

[Aurora]

Maggie won, and was strengthened to take on and defeat the coal miners next. The Argentine Junta lost, and was soon thereafter overthrown, to the great benefit of the people of Argentina.

This is the extreme example of the Leninist principle of revolutionary defeatism. Losing the Malvinas war was a terrible thing for the British working class. Losing the Falklands war was the best thing that could possibly have happened for the working people of Argentina.
What should be the position of communists who are in neither country?

[dodger]

What should be the position of communists who are in neither country?

Get on with your own business

[Aurora]

Get on with your own business

That's it?
War tends to be a big issue even in the countries that aren't directly involved, i was wondering how communists in these countries should deal with it, opposition obviously, but without a native bourgeoisie involved that we can call for the defeat of communist's positions can become pacifist.

[Manic Impressive]

That's it?
War tends to be a big issue even in the countries that aren't directly involved, i was wondering how communists in these countries should deal with it, opposition obviously, but without a native bourgeoisie involved that we can call for the defeat of communist's positions can become pacifist.
As communists or just as workers we should oppose all wars over bourgeois interests no matter what country we are in. The position of picking the lesser evil is incredibly stupid. Why does it matter what the nationality of the bourgeois that is exploiting you is? There is no lesser evil.

[Cencus]

There isn't going to be any war. The Islands are defended by more than a token force these days, hell it's got a better runway than edinburgh airport, and there will certainly not be any real negociations over sovereignty. It would be political suicide for any U.K. government to cede any territory against the will of the residents, never mind one that had previously invaded. The Argintinian government knew this before they started this latest round of shit stirring, so what's it all about, nothing more than stirring up pointless nationalism when the economies up shit creak, it's just bourgais politics.

[arilando]

Yes I agree the workers must be free to be oppressed by the people of their own choosing. It's despicable that some johnny foreigner wants to come over there and exploit those poor workers when we have more than enough capitalists capable of doing that ourselves. PROTECT OUR BRITISH BOURGEOISIES RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THEM. Because even though they are exploiting us at least they are the same nationality and race as us and that makes a huge difference because.....urm.....
Thats not what he's actually saying, he's just saying that we should let the islands inhabitants decide, which i agree with.

[A Marxist Historian]

What should be the position of communists who are in neither country?

The same as for those who are in either country. Revolutionary defeatism.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Whoops! Big bad typo in the below. I meant to say winning the Falklands war was a terrible tyhing for the British working class.

Fixed now in original posting.

-M.H.-


If "self determination" is the issue in the Falklands, then the islands should be turned over to the Animal Liberation Front, as the vast majority of the population of the islands is sheep.

I mean, come on, 3,000 people? And most of them British soldiers?

At the time of the Falklands War, there were only 1200, which is less than the number of people attending my local high school.

No, these are a bunch of worthless rocks, and fighting a war over them was absurd.

Maggie won, and was strengthened to take on and defeat the coal miners next. The Argentine Junta lost, and was soon thereafter overthrown, to the great benefit of the people of Argentina.

This is the extreme example of the Leninist principle of revolutionary defeatism. Winning the Malvinas war was a terrible thing for the British working class. Losing the Falklands war was the best thing that could possibly have happened for the working people of Argentina.

And for those fools who think this was an "anti-imperialist" war on the part of the monstrously murderous Argentine military dictatorship, well, let me point out that the imperialist power in that part of the world ain't Britain, it's the USA.

The Reagan administration was divided over that one, with Secretary of State Alexander Plague actually wanting to support Argentina, on the grounds that he liked the Argentine form of government better than the British. But wiser heads overruled him, as England was a more important US ally than Argentina.

-M.H.-

[Agathor]

The company may be called The Falklands Island company but it has always been a British owned company which is now floated on the London stock exchange. It is owned by the British bourgeoisie.

But regardless of which bourgeoisie owns the company or has the rights to the oil or whatever else why should British or Argentinian workers be asked to kill each other in order to protect those interests?

For the third time. The main industries in the Falkands are sheep herding and fishing. Argiculture is 95% of their economy. Falkland Island's Company deals with retail, some hotels, some shipping etc. Irrelevant.

[Manic Impressive]

For the third time. The main industries in the Falkands are sheep herding and fishing. Argiculture is 95% of their economy. Falkland Island's Company deals with retail, some hotels, some shipping etc. Irrelevant.
I don't know how many times I've said this and proved it using external sources but the falklands company is not owned by anyone who lives on the falklands islands. It is owned by members of the British bourgeoisie. I have proven this and yet you refuse to accept it.

You also ignore the fact that the nationality of whoever owns the fucking company should be of absolutely no consequence to any worker. The only correct position should be condemnation and non participation in wars that only further one faction of the bourgeoisie over another.

[dodger]

AT the time of the invasion it was owned by Coalite, we scratched our heads and realized it went back to the old days of steam ships. Empire. Not even used like other islands elsewhere as a fixed aircraft carrier. A minor listening station, and provision store for Antartic Exploration. M. Historian is wholly correct the British Working Class were the losers in all this. A lesson for any who care to listen in any part of the globe. We are still paying the price, literally, in our pockets a senseless policy. Human cost , a Rating on Sir Galahad cut down by his parents from the rafters, after enjoying a meal out. A 4in column in our local paper. A sizeable and prosperous population in Argentina of both British and particularly Welsh origins must find all these shenanigans distasteful. The very fact of rulers in both states blowing tin war trumpets is enough reason to ignore and settle accounts nearer at home. 3,000 or whatever figure are not worth one Tommy testicle. Ridiculous posturing. Ruled by Commissioners from Brussels, sovereignty issues need addressing closer to home. We need to get off the back foot each time shit happens, as we know it always will. Issues over rights and wrongs...who is the bigger shitehound. When even tiny Norway can send planes to a country hundreds of miles away and rain down death and destruction. Dodger has no problem at all being abused as a pacifist, in fact he basks in the glory of it.

[A Marxist Historian]

For the third time. The main industries in the Falkands are sheep herding and fishing. Argiculture is 95% of their economy. Falkland Island's Company deals with retail, some hotels, some shipping etc. Irrelevant.

So who owns the sheep and the fishing boats, if not the Falklands Company?

I find it hard to believe that they are owned by some sort of leftover medieval peasantry. This is the 21st century after all.

My suspicion is that it's simply a different Brit company, but who knows, I could be wrong. Clue us in.

-M.H.-

[dodger]

That's it?
War tends to be a big issue even in the countries that aren't directly involved, i was wondering how communists in these countries should deal with it, opposition obviously, but without a native bourgeoisie involved that we can call for the defeat of communist's positions can become pacifist.

In the 30's Newsreels in cinemas showed the Bombing of Nanking/ Madrid. They were stopped by the managers of the venue, then by owners due to public pressure. People were fainting, crying inconsolably rushing out of the auditorium.It seems hardly credible, highly censored images could produce such a reaction. It seems true to say we have lost something of our humanity, the constant repetition of beastly images no longer assaults our senses as once they did.Corralled journalists an answer after Vietnam was trumped by of all things a camera on a mobile phone. COME and SEE! Debate, intelligent/intelligible debate with fellow workers on the true nature of war, who gains who loses. Often easier if ones own country is not involved, lessons learnt examples shown can be internalized. Costs human and material, our countries standing in the world, get rich quick arms dealers...other options for dealing with conflict. Dredge it all up. Class ever present here finds a way into the equation The readiness is all. we should be on the front foot, it is testimony of weakness we find our selves on the back foot. We should know all our own ruling classes little tricks by now. F-F-F-Fucksake we have lived with them long enough, surely. Some might even say too long. They watch us like hawks. Noticed we cared little for war, War Ministry became Ministry of Defence. We need respectful debate with fellow workers not lectures, that we might all press forward..

[Avocado]

There is no clear answer on the sovereignty issue. I think the proximity argument is defunct.

I also think that the self-determination argument example above using Israel is a poor analogy.

A better one would be Northern Ireland.