Militant & The Falklands War/Malvinas Conflict - split from SEP thread

[Aurora]

You can see where this is going, can't you. Off in the direction of the same old nationalist chauvinism as the Militant at its worst. It is hardly surprising though. This is an organisation who advocated the election of a Labour government to 'continue the war on socialist lines', which I suppose would be somewhat like the lines on which the Blair government prosecuted the war in Iraq.

Really, this is repugnant.

Devrim
Daft Punk's view isn't that of the Militant, Militant opposed the war recognizing that the Junta were attempting to stir up nationalism to increase their support and recognizing that Thatcher was doing the exact same thing.
"Workers can give no support whatsoever to the lunatic adventure now being prepared by the Thatcher government"
"We are against this capitalist war."
"What position did we take on the war? We opposed both British imperialism and the Argentinean military dictatorship. Both sides were fighting a capitalist war contrary to the interests of the working class."

Militant's position of 'continuing the war on socialist lines' was mistaken only in that it was based around a mistaken view of the Labour party as a vehicle for socialism, if there had been a revolution in Britain the rationale of defence of the workers state would have been the correct position as the character of the war would have changed, it would no longer be a war between two capitalist powers but a class war between the revolutionary workers and a capitalist military dictatorship.

[daft punk]

Daft Punk's view isn't that of the Militant, Militant opposed the war recognizing that the Junta were attempting to stir up nationalism to increase their support and recognizing that Thatcher was doing the exact same thing.

"Workers can give no support whatsoever to the lunatic adventure now being prepared by the Thatcher government"
"We are against this capitalist war."
"What position did we take on the war? We opposed both British imperialism and the Argentinean military dictatorship. Both sides were fighting a capitalist war contrary to the interests of the working class."


and in what way does this differ from what I said?



Militant's position of 'continuing the war on socialist lines' was mistaken only in that it was based around a mistaken view of the Labour party as a vehicle for socialism, if there had been a revolution in Britain the rationale of defence of the workers state would have been the correct position as the character of the war would have changed, it would no longer be a war between two capitalist powers but a class war between the revolutionary workers and a capitalist military dictatorship.

well, the LPYS was dominated by Militant at the time, it was more left wing than it is now. They obviously didnt mean with the same leaders

[Aurora]

and in what way does this differ from what I said?

You didn't mention the British state at all, the implication was that Militant opposed the Argentine state only which is not true and is a national-chavinist position.



well, the LPYS was dominated by Militant at the time, it was more left wing than it is now. They obviously didnt mean with the same leaders
The Militant had illusions that there was a parliamentary road for socialism and that Labour was the vehicle for this.


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]
Here they say it's possible for a party elected in a bourgeois election to introduce socialist policies, this is incorrect and theres no shame in admitting that since it is no longer the CWI position, they of course don't mean Labour with it's right-wing leadership but Labour with a socialist leadership, but this doesn't make a difference all attempts to introduce socialism through parliament are doomed to failure.

[daft punk]

You didn't mention the British state at all, the implication was that Militant opposed the Argentine state only which is not true and is a national-chavinist position.

I only wrote a couple of lines, not an in depth analysis.




The Militant had illusions that there was a parliamentary road for socialism and that Labour was the vehicle for this.

No they didnt



Originally Posted by Militant
"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] "
Here they say it's possible for a party elected in a bourgeois election to introduce socialist policies, this is incorrect and theres no shame in admitting that since it is no longer the CWI position, they of course don't mean Labour with it's right-wing leadership but Labour with a socialist leadership, but this doesn't make a difference all attempts to introduce socialism through parliament are doomed to failure.

Well, that's just one line which is simplifying things a bit for your average worker, and without much context. You have to kind of start with a concept that makes sense to someone even if it's a bit of a simplification, and then develop their understanding from there.

This was a time when the average worker still thought of Labour as a nominally socialist party.

They are sort of saying what could be done, in theory. Or what should be done. Not what was particularly likely at that time.

You talk about parliamentary roads and stuff but later in the same article the SP is analysing the position of the sects in comparison to Lenin's position in 1917 in some detail.

"The October revolution, which overthrew the Provisional government and put power in the hands of the workers’ and peasants’ Soviets, demonstrated the correctness of Lenin’s strategy and tactics. Arguing against ultra-left ideas in 1921, Lenin said: "Our sole strategy now is to become stronger, hence cleverer, more sensible, more ‘opportunistic’". Lenin was using "opportunistic" ironically, to underline his rejection of an ultra-left approach based on the mechanical repetition of "left" slogans regardless of their effect on the majority of workers. Lenin’s speech on this question is printed in his Collected Works, volume 42, pp324-328."
http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I live in Britain, I am explaining my ideas to the British working class, the people around me (actually it happened just before I joined Militant).

There was no nationalist chauvinism, if there was, produce some evidence. There was none though, it's easy to say stuff, I would like to see you back it up.

If I had joined a bit earlier, but joined one of the sects, I would be saying to British workers, regarding the war which most of them believed was totally right, that we should leave these British people in the Falklands to the mercies of a fascist general.

How to get zero credibility in 5 minutes.

The Militant did not call for a British defeat nor victory either, they refused to get drawn into that trap.

I was there, I remember it, to the British workers it was a no-brainer to support the troops. Thatcher scored a big own goal when she sank the Belgrano as it sailed away from the Falklands.

Anyway, they just laughed at the sects and their support for fascist Galtieri.

Wouldn't the correct position be against Britain and Argentina? With the focus being against one's own bourgeoisie? You know the old slogan, "The Main Enemy is at Home"?

[daft punk]

Wouldn't the correct position be against Britain and Argentina? With the focus being against one's own bourgeoisie? You know the old slogan, "The Main Enemy is at Home"?
The Militant's position was against both. Galtieri invaded the Falklands to head off a revolution in Argentina. For socialists to support his was crazy. The Tories were just as bad, they sold arms to Galtieri when he was repressing the Argentinian workers.

The Militant called for the bringing down of the Tory government itself, via a general election. They called for Labour to stop backing the Tories war efforts, for an end to the unofficial war coalition. They called for Labour to implement socialist policies. Labour should campaign and win on a socialist platform and make a class appeal to Argentinian workers to stop the war.

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

[Aurora]

Maybe here in the USA we should call for "continuing the war on socialist lines" vs. those reactionary Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan? After all, if you had a socialist revolution in America tomorrow...
Surely theres a difference between the Falklands war and the war in Afghanistan, as you said in another thread the defeat of the Junta was a victory for the Argentinian working class, can the same be said for the defeat of the Taliban? It seems to me that rather than being a victory for Afghan workers and peasants Afghanistan is now in 'double-chains'.
There's also the Islanders to consider, Thatcher's words about them were empty phrases to gain support, a workers state would fight off an annexation by a capitalist power and ensure their self-determination.

Presumably this difference in the nature of the war is what stops the IMT from raising such an absurd position even though they think Labour is a workers party.


Thinking that if Labour gets elected it could be a "vehicle for socialism" isn't just a "mistaken view." Anybody who thinks that isn't a revolutionary
I agree, in another post i said their position in Britain was to win the Labour leadership, get elected and introduce socialism, this is clearly not revolutionary.

[Devrim]

I live in Britain, I am explaining my ideas to the British working class, the people around me (actually it happened just before I joined Militant).

Well no you are not. You are explaining your ideas on an Internet forum with posters from all over the world. And the idea that you were explaining was that 'the Falkland Islanders were inhabited by British people'. Perhaps you shouldn't be surprised, especially given what the Militant were saying at the time, that people see the roots of chauvinism here.


There was no nationalist chauvinism, if there was, produce some evidence. There was none though, it's easy to say stuff, I would like to see you back it up.

As I remember it all, there were Militant members on the ground were 'backing our boys'. Of course that is something that it is not possible to show, but I am sure that others will remember it. What they said in their theoretical magazine was bad enough, and this we can look at:


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.

Even here they were quite prepared to continue the war under a Labour government. A Labour government which you yourself stated when discussing the idea of winning the Labour Party to socialism:


as i say, nobody in Militant really believed it was possible.

So what you were advocating was that a capitalist Labour government continue the war.


The Militant did support revolutions elsewhere but it's own view of revolution in Britain amounted to winning the Labour leadership, getting elected and introducing socialist policy.
No they didn't believe it, yes they did sort of say it, no I wouldn't call it sowing illusions, I would call it a little white lie,To me it shows an utter contempt for working class people.


Also we had to be a bit careful what we said as we were in the LP and not supposed to be a separate organisation,

Is that supposed to be an excuse?


The Militant did not call for a British defeat nor victory either, they refused to get drawn into that trap.

So what did you call for, for the 'Socialist government to continue the war badly?


Anyway, they just laughed at the sects and their support for fascist Galtieri.

Obviously communists couldn't support the Argentinian state*. However wrong they may have been in that though at least it isn't as repugnant as supporting your own state in a war, which was my impression of what the militant did.

Devrim

*Calling it fascist though seems at best to be just throwing around buzz words, and at worst appealing to the spirit of WWII anti-fascist nationalism.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2409387#post2409387)
"I live in Britain, I am explaining my ideas to the British working class, the people around me (actually it happened just before I joined Militant). "

Well no you are not. You are explaining your ideas on an Internet forum with posters from all over the world. And the idea that you were explaining was that 'the Falkland Islanders were inhabited by British people'. Perhaps you shouldn't be surprised, especially given what the Militant were saying at the time, that people see the roots of chauvinism here.


I was using the present tense to imply the past tense. The Falklands were inhabited mainly by people of British descent. You cant just abandon the Fakland Islanders them to a fascist general and expect the British working class to agree with it. Does Galtieri not sound a bit Spanish to you? Were the Spanish also not imperialists? So we should hand an island inhabited by Brits to a Spanish dictator living in occupied Argentina? It's not like there was an indigenous population and we colonised it. Ok geographically it is near Argentina but Argentina was colonised by Spain anyway. This is typical ultraleft. So keen to stick to principles you lose sight of reality. In fact a win for Galtieri would be a defeat for the Argentinian working class. And devastating to the people who had lived on the islands for generations.



As I remember it all, there were Militant members on the ground were 'backing our boys'.

You didnt used to write for the Sun did you? Anyway, stop making up silly tales.



Of course that is something that it is not possible to show, but I am sure that others will remember it.

ludicrous






What they said in their theoretical magazine was bad enough, and this we can look at:



Even here they were quite prepared to continue the war under a Labour government. A Labour government which you yourself stated when discussing the idea of winning the Labour Party to socialism:

Read the article. They want to turn it into a revolution to overthrow Galtieri:

"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]
It is vital to oppose the capitalist war with a clear policy on these lines. Such a policy can win the support of the advanced workers, and also wider layers of the working class, countering the lying propaganda of the capitalist class. In the course of the crisis, the television and especially the press have sunk to new depths, attempting to whip up vile chauvinist and warmongering sentiments. In attacking its sleazy rival, the Sun, the Daily Mirror said that it had sunk from the gutter to the sewer – a description which also fits the Mirror and the rest of the capitalist press!"
http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html





So what you were advocating was that a capitalist Labour government continue the war.

no



To me it shows an utter contempt for working class people.

why?




Is that supposed to be an excuse?

The Militant were saying what was possible. There was no other policy that made sense. What was your policy? Back Galtieri?




So what did you call for, for the 'Socialist government to continue the war badly?

A socialist government would simply defend the people on the island, see the above which you selectively quoted from. It was not an imperialist war they were describing if a socialist government took place. It is a war linked to revolution in Britain and Spain. It is an action to defend the islanders coupled with a bit to defeat Galtieri not only by the British military but by revolution in Argentina. Basically it is us helping the Argentinian revolution with military action.





Obviously communists couldn't support the Argentinian state*. However wrong they may have been in that though at least it isn't as repugnant as supporting your own state in a war, which was my impression of what the militant did.

Devrim

*Calling it fascist though seems at best to be just throwing around buzz words, and at worst appealing to the spirit of WWII anti-fascist nationalism.
So what should they have done? By the way communists did support Galtieri and called for the sinking of the British fleet? Do you think that would win British workers to socialism, or disgust them?


"Argentina Argentina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina) (1946–1955 and 1973–1974) - Juan Perón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Peron) admired Mussolini[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] and established his own regime (while considered by some[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] to be neo-fascist) inspired by elements of corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), although it has been more often considered populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. After he died, his wife and vice-president Isabel Perón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Per%C3%B3n) was deposed by a military junta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship), after a short interregnum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interregnum) characterized by support for the neo-fascist Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Anticommunist_Alliance) (la Triple A) terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist) group[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Videla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Rafael_Videla)'s junta, which participated in Operation Condor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor), supported various neo-fascist and right-wing terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism) movements; the SIDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIDE) supported Luis García Meza Tejada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Garc%C3%ADa_Meza_Tejada)'s Cocaine Coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Coup) in Bolivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia) and trained the Contras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_%28guerrillas%29) in Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nicaragua).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism#Argentina


Actually the Militant article calls them "fascist" not fascist.

It also goes into a lot of detail about what Trotsky said by the way on this subject.

[A Marxist Historian]

Surely theres a difference between the Falklands war and the war in Afghanistan, as you said in another thread the defeat of the Junta was a victory for the Argentinian working class, can the same be said for the defeat of the Taliban? It seems to me that rather than being a victory for Afghan workers and peasants Afghanistan is now in 'double-chains'.
There's also the Islanders to consider, Thatcher's words about them were empty phrases to gain support, a workers state would fight off an annexation by a capitalist power and ensure their self-determination.

Presumably this difference in the nature of the war is what stops the IMT from raising such an absurd position even though they think Labour is a workers party.


I agree, in another post i said their position in Britain was to win the Labour leadership, get elected and introduce socialism, this is clearly not revolutionary.


Yes, I didn't want to confuse the Falklands War with either of the Afghanistan wars, the one going on right now or the one that was happening at the same time as the Falklands War.

The Falklands War was a war between two close allies of the dominant imperialist power in the world, the USA. Therefore the position of the USA was counterrevolutionary pacifism, wishing that Galtieri and Thatcher would kiss and make up. And when that didn't happen, deciding to side with Thatcher as she was gonna win, and it's always wise to be on the side of the winner.

Whereas the position of revolutionaries should have been Leninist revolutionary defeatism, essentially hoping for both sides to lose.

The current Afghan war is an imperialist war by the US vs. a colonial country. The fact that the Taliban are ultrareactionaries is really irrelevant. For that matter, Karzai and his lot aren't too different, maybe less reactionary in theory, but in practice even more corrupt than the Taliban are. And Karzai himself used to work for a Texas oil company, didn't he? Or was that his brother?

Whereas the original Afghan war, by the Soviet Union and the PDPA vs. the Mujahedeen and its CIA and Islamic backers, was a progressive war that everyone should have supported.

As for the islanders, all 1300 of them at the time, who cares? Fighting a war over which right wing government they end up under the thumb of is ridiculous in so many ways. Arguably more important really is the welfare of the vast overwhelming majority of the Falklands population, namely the sheep.

-M.H.-

[gorillafuck]

Militant's position of 'continuing the war on socialist lines' was mistaken only in that it was based around a mistaken view of the Labour party as a vehicle for socialism, if there had been a revolution in Britain the rationale of defence of the workers state would have been the correct position as the character of the war would have changed, it would no longer be a war between two capitalist powers but a class war between the revolutionary workers and a capitalist military dictatorship.so still, the militants line was that the labour party should be elected (going the ridiculous thought that they would enact a socialist government) to continue the war in the falklands.

[daft punk]

so still, the militants line was that the labour party should be elected (going the ridiculous thought that they would could enact a socialist government) to continue turn the war in the falklands into part of a socialist revolution against capitalism in Argentina and Britain.fyp

Yes, this is what Trotskyists do, look for revolutionary potential, point out what could or should be done. That doesn't mean we thing it is particularly likely, but it shows how socialist revolution could develop. Glass half full.