The islands were empty. Settlers moved there. And now they don't want to be invaded. How is that imperialistic?
Results 41 to 60 of 61
The islands were empty. Settlers moved there. And now they don't want to be invaded. How is that imperialistic?
If they were encouraged to move there in order to establish (and provide some sort of "ethnic justification" for) an overseas imperial dependency, how is it not imperialistic?
You guys are really clutching at straws here. Whatever reasons the original settlers had for moving - keep in mind that they are the indigenous population and that the free movement of people is an important right.
Their descendants are not responsible for their forefather's reasons, and they are the indigenous and only population. It is not imperialistic for them to stay part of the country they want to - especially to protect themselves from actual imperialist aggression.
Is this nationalistbrit.com now? As Marxists or anarchists shouldn't we be taking the fundamental presupposition that nations, the idea of borders, the "right" to own a bit of land more than someone else is all a capitalist construct? Why does either country have more of a right to own what is basically a bit of mud in the sea more than the other? And shame on you people saying Britain should own it because "they were there first". It sounds like you're arguing with children in the playground. Now, my understanding of the Falklands isn't nearly as thorough as some others folks here, but I think the basic crux of the matter is a fight for oil. Thatcher also used the nationalist sentiment stirred up by the war as a way of rallying support for crushing the striking miners at home. But anyway, to say one country has more of a right to it than the other is ridiculous, considering there is pretty much nothing there but sheep and bogs in the first, and of course there's the oil reserves. Neither country, therefore, is fuelled by nationalism in wanting hegemony over the island; they are bothed fuelled wholly by imperialist greed, backed up by aggressive expansion. Until I find out more that will change my mind, or unless I am fundamentally wrong in anything I know about the war, the Falklands was a pathetic, yet sad, conflict of which neither of the participating countries deserve a slither of my support. I don't have to take sides, because neither country deserves the little island more than the other.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
I agree, but we as Socialists should support what the people of the Falklands want, and they want to be part of Britain.
In fairness Lyev, your tendency practically cheered on the side of the British during the Falklands, which has been demonstrated in some earlier threads on the CWI's position on the subject.
Coalition of Resistance - Fight Back Against the Cuts!
"As for the lad "Sam_b", I've been reading this forum for a while and I don't think I've ever seen him contribute anything of any value. Most of the chap's posts seem to be confrontational and snarky digs at other posters. Thankfully, most other contributors do not seem to behave in this manner." - Some Guy
Well, I wasn't alive when the CWI/SPEW "cheered on the side of British during the Falklands", i.e., it wasn't their position on the Falklands that drew me to the organisation. I don't know clearly our position on the war, and right now, when we're organising meeting, setting up stalls, selling papers, talking to people on the street etc. it doesn't seem immediately relevant. Having said this, I don't have to follow the party line strictly, it's not a stiff dogma or religion.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
To be fair though, you cant blindly and blanketly use that as a benchmark of what to support and call yourself a socialist.
If the people of britain wanted to kick out every immigrant it doesn't mean we should support it.
Although on the other hand in the case of the falklands/malvinas i dont really think argentina has any historical, moral or political currency to back up its claim.
Of course not, I'm not implying that. But in cases such as these, it's best to side with what the people themselves want rather than siding with the interests of imperialists and nationalists.
Because until the prospect of oil recently came up, the Islands were utterly useless.
At any rate whatever the reasons were almost two centuries ago, how does it follow that people with no connection with Argentina and no wish to be put under its rule should become part of the same?
I might be confusing you with someone else who posted in the Pan-Celtic thread, but your posts there did sort of imply that.
Was oil not part of the reasoning for the war in the '80s? I was under the impression it was. Large reserves under the South Atlantic, that at that point were considered economic to exploit, but it was thought that technological developments would lead to them being exploited in the future. And now it's the future (and the world is running out of oil).
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
You're not really understanding this. Socialists (at least the ones who are firmly internationalist) are opposed to the Britains existence, because we are opposed to capitalist governments which Britain very obviously is. So why would we be like "well, I oppose Britain, but I think the Falklands should belong to Britain". That makes no sense at all.
What other option IS there, then? Would you prefer it was owned by Argentina, who has no reasonable claim to the islands other than one based on it's location?
On the issue of oil, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that oil found in South America belong to the British.
AKA El Vagoneta
[FONT=Courier New] This is a website to help you quit smoking[/FONT]
http://rananets.blogspot.com/ <---Radical News Aggregator beta
The other option is opposing each side sending people off to die for either Britain or Argentina.
The Falklands war was primarily started as a move to rally up nationalist sentiment and support for Thatcher, by the way.
So prove it.Originally Posted by Draconid
Coalition of Resistance - Fight Back Against the Cuts!
"As for the lad "Sam_b", I've been reading this forum for a while and I don't think I've ever seen him contribute anything of any value. Most of the chap's posts seem to be confrontational and snarky digs at other posters. Thankfully, most other contributors do not seem to behave in this manner." - Some Guy
I don't support either of the sides, but as long as the population there is British and wants to remain British, the Falklands should stay part of the British state, whether it is Socialist or not.
You're contradicting yourself by saying those two things.
You're still not understanding the issue, I don't think. The British state is a capitalist state. This is key. Socialists, internationalists, who oppose capitalist states, do not take sides on which capitalist government which is trying to gain control of a small island should control that island, as they are both regimes which should be opposed in their entirety.
I meant I do not support any side that took part in the Falklands war, not any side in the entire situation in the Falklands. And, who said I was not against the British capitalist regime? Just because I'd prefer the Falklands to be owned by Britain rather than Argentina doesn't make me some kind of British nationalist who supports everything the UK does.
