Writeback Don't back Galtieri! MARXISM UP FOR GRABS?

Scan page 11

analogy with 1938 on the model of it bear more relation to would impose on Brazil tom of the break-up of ically justified, bu Hitler's Germany or Peronism than to the milit- in the form of an even imperialism but this does cannot be resolved THE method of Socialist Organiser has been made crystal clear by the issues raised in the Argentine/ British war.

All your assessments and conclusions can be found rooted in the simple idea that revolutionaries can never give any support to any action of the junta. This premise forces you to demonstrate that only the bourgeoisie can benefit from the invasion of the Malvinas.

From this perspective the invasions cannot be assessed as a blow to imperialism, and Galtieri has to be pin-pointed as the only beneficiary in Argentina.

Holding loyally onto this No I WISH to criticise most strongly the IWL statement on the Falklands/ Malvinas war (SO83). Nothing does more harm to Marxism than the wrenching of quotations from their historical context in order to make a superficial analogy with present events — a practice Trotsky himself deplored.

There is no comparison whatsoever between the government of Getulio Vargas in the Brazil of 1938 and the government of Galtieri in the Argentina of 1982. Vargas' regime may indeed be described as "semi-fascist" but it was certainly not Fascist We invite readers to send us their letters, up to a usual maximum length of 400 words. Send to Socialist Organiser, c/o 28, Middle Lane. London N8. logic SO maintains that there are no strategic or mineral interests in the South Atlantic! This in turn leads you to explain to boost the Tories at the next election!

Is it really necessary for the bourgeoisie to risk a war just to avoid the SDP, Foot or Healey?

The facts contradict your conclusions. Britain has avoided handing over sovereignty and the seas around the South Atlantic are increasingly strategic because they are the only alternative to the Panama Canal.

Seeing the bourgeoisie as the only beneficiary of state on the model of Hitler's Germany OI Mussolini's Italy, as Trotsky realised by his important qualification of "semi"

Vargas was in fact threatened by an attempted coup by Salgado and his Brazilian Nazis. Although the trades unions were incorporated into the state, opposition was suppressed and the Communist party outlawed, Vargas did not wage class war on the horrific scale carried out by the Argentinian junta over the last six years.

Vargas' style of government and the historical conditions which gave rise SOCIALISTS who are calling for the victory of the Argentine Junta have as you point out (SO81) got lost in their desire to create •a nice, straightforward anti-imperialist schema.

Twist and turn as they may, these people cannot escape the clear logic: a victory for Argentina in the short, medium or any other term of interest to socialists, will not give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness and lead to the overthrow of the invasion in Argentina, leads SO to conclude that Argentina has no just claim to sovereignty of the Malvinas. This, in turn, leads to two conclusions — firstly that Argentina's actions are imperialist (mini-colonial gambit "), and, secondly to a denial of the importance of any geographical or economic factors in the determination of the extent of sovereignUnpleasant The conclusions that SO is not ready to publi ise are very unpleasant for socialists, and go far beyond the need to call for ary regimes of Argentina, Chile, El Salvador etc., todav. Peronism was and remains based very much vave on the working class. It is also to a limited extent antiimperialistic.

Perhaps socialists could take a defencist position if the Junta shared some of these characteristics. But it does not, and a careful reading of the quotation used by the IWL shows what Trotsky's true stance would have been in today's situation.

Trotsky warns against the "double chains" which a victorious imperialism the Galtieri dictatorship.

On the contrary it will intensify reactionary ideology in the Argentine proletariat and bind them closer to the military capitalists who delivered the goods after 150 years of waiting.

Of course, a victory for Thatcher will similarly set back the working class struggle in the UK and provide a tremendous impetus for right wing policies, militarism and racism.

Our main axis therefore, an immediate withdrawal.

Up for grabs is the theory of permanent revolution! For this is clearly outdated if a neo-colonial country like Argentina has really broken from its dependence - to the extent of developing a competing imperialism! Revolutionaries in a whole string of similar countries (Mexico? India? South Korea?...) must therefore change their strategies towards fighting a home based imperialism. Revolutionaries in the remaining neo-colonies must also make major reassessments of the potential of their own national bourgeoisies to effect reform. would impose on Brazil in the form of an even worse fascist dictatorship. These "double chains" have already been forged around the peoples of South America by imperialism which has armed, trained and assisted the rise to power of military juntas throughout the continent in order to protect the interests of imperialism.

Because one of the watchdogs of imperialism has turned against its masters (like Idi Amin did, remember) we must not elevate it to an act of anti-imperialist principle.

Objectively it is a symphas to be 'Stop the War' not 'Victory to Argentina'; 'Don't play their: deadly capitalist game' not 'Bootboys for Buenos Aires' The Falkland Islands have never been part of the Argentine nation, a nation that was forged with the big European settlements of the latter part of the nineteenth century. Argentina's claim is purely a territorial claim. It has nothing to do with self-determination. Britain never dispossessed Marx's materialism is also dumped by SO's analysis of what is being fought for - a group of islands that are so useless that the British have been trying to unload them for years? A strange imperialism this Argentinian brand!

And then the right of the Orange areas of Belfast to self-determination has always been known to socialists hasn't it?

Refusal

All this just because SO makes a blanket refusal to support any action by any neo-colonial government.

Just because SO is concerned more with the tom of the break-up of imperialism but this does not mean we should support the junta. The only socialist and internationalist position is a defeatist one. We must call for the political overthrow of our own governments. The struggle against the war in Britain is an essential part of that struggle to defeat the Tory government. Argentinian socialists have the responsibility to carry on their heroic and already costly struggle against the Junta.

It cannot be postponed. Argentinian claims to the Falkland/Malvinas are historically and geographGaltieri an Argentine population of 'the Falklands (which is why purity of the actor's motives than with the action itself.

The only criteria that socialists start from is the interests of the world working Class. However Thatcher's defeat comes about it will smash jingoism in Britain, demoralise imperialism, increase the demands put on Galtieri, and enormously encourage all liberation forces world-wide. The stakes are unquantifiable, even the Malvinas Islanders have no objective interest in remaining an imperialist outpost.

Yours fraternally, LES HARTOP Coventry ically justified, but they cannot be resolved by war between bourgeois powers. The question of sovereignty will only be settled when a British socialist government hands over the islands unconditionally to a democratic Argentina.

Any support for the Junta does not help the working class of the respective countries achieve this - in fact I would go so far as to call it a betrayal of Trotskyism.

Socialist greetings, Alan Brooke, Colne Valley CLP IMB KNOW! the means of independently monitoring their implementation, so as to come to a possible agreement on ending the boycott.

Nestle failed to respond to this, saying that they would only meet with "serious and responsible"

people (like Church leaders).

Some critics would say that the charges against these multinationals are extremely serious, and that Nestle and others are in this way responsible for the continued tragedy we see in the Third World.

Laurens Otter's parallel Attor'

with the six counties is an erroneous one).

As a territorial claim it is extremely dubious, the flag of the former Republic of Buenos Aires having flown over the Malvinas for some part of the years 1822-33.

Its successful accomplishment could well spark off further military adventures against Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, etc, against whom Argentina also has territorial claims.

The Falkland Islanders do not oppress the Argentine nation, nor are they acting as the agents of a colonial power. For Britain the issue is one of how and when, not whether to decolonise.

The Islanders are of course no more a nation than the six county Protestants. But as a non-oppressive settler community they should have group rights to decide their own future.

Those who support the flagrant violation of those rights by armed force are doing a disservice to our goals of freedom, justice and autonomy, stimulating the reactionary use of violence and dragging the name of socialism through the mud.

An invasion such as that undertaken by the Junta cannot be supported. This would be so even if Argentina was a bourgeois democracy or even a deformed workers' state.

But we are told Britain is an imperialist power, Argentina a dependent country. We always support the Argentinas of this world against the Britains.

This is schematic nonsense. If the Mexican government invaded the USA tomorrow to reclaim Texas would we support them on the grounds that such an invasion would aid the progress of world revolution? The latter is the criterion on which we should base our support. All other schemas are contingent - helpful secondary guides sometimes.

We should oppose the Argentine invasion for the same reasons as we oppose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I have stressed the position of Argentina to correct the wrong positions taken by certain groups. But of course our main tasks and Sur main enemy are here at home.

Whilst the key to our slogan 'Stop the War' is unity between British and Argentine workers, the first step towards this is the blacking of all military suppliers.

Many resolutions going forward condemning Thatcher's war effort miss this central point.

C. Fosco Manchester Orgonises London N8

----- pull-quotes -----

that Margaret Thatcher is only using the war in order

and the Labour democracy fight for a WORKERS Socialist GOVERNMENT Pamphlet

40p plus postage from Socialist Organ- iser, 28 Middle Lane,