Sub-imperialism and Argentina

Scan page 14

reasons of space 1 capital is exported from wav that to a lacon»

Dear S.0, 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.

FOR reasons of space I

limit myself to making the following points in reply to Jack Johnson's criticisms (SO89) of my previous letter (SO88):

* Argentina exports capital to its natural hinterland, particularly Bolivia; it is exported either through direct private investment by the Argentine bourgeoisie or through banks. This does not make Argentine a net exporter of capital, and it wasn't my intention to suggest it was, nonetheless but

capital is

*Sub-imperialism is not "a new phenomenon superceding Lenin's thesis on imperialism". Some may be loathe to admit it, but changes have taken place in the world since 1945 which cannot be fully explained by giving a page reference to Imperialism -the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

I would have thought that "sub-imperialism" supplements Lenin's thesis on imperialism in the same way (but to a lesser extent) as "deformed • workers states" supplements Trotsky's theses on Stalinism.

"Import substitution" was not "a new strategy developed by imperialism". It was a strategy pursued by Third World countries, particularly Latin American ones, in an (unsuccessful) attempt to achieve national industrialisation. It was the recognition of its failure which led to the emergence of the theories of dependency.

ge

*The 1960 military 1AMa regime in Turkey bears no similarity to more recent military regimes in either Latin America or Turkey. It was a shortlived affair, based predominantly on the petty bourgeoisie suffering from the policies of monopolistic industrialisation pursued by the Mendes government. The present regime in Argentina is about as similar to it as the junta of Evren.

*Johnson's argument that "a defeat of British is plainly another one of those who thinks like the "muddle heads"' that comrade Crooke criticises.

The positions he put help us arrive at an assessment of the current conflict as one between an imperialist power and a dependent - although formally independent - capitalist state.

Unlike comrade Crooke Lenin knew perfectly well the difference between imperialist and dependent countries. If he wishes to stand in the camp of Lenin, comrade Crooke and all those who think like him must work a little harder at discovering where the real muddle headed thinking is going on.

GEOFF ROBERTSON Oxford imperialism by Argentina would create the possibilities for the Argentinian working class to repeat what the Turkish working class did in the 1960g" shows up the fundamental defect in his position.

For the present Argentine junta has done the exact opposite of what happened under the Turkish junta of 1960: it has clamped down on trade union organisation, destroyed the right to strike, replaced a (limited) freedom of expression with censorship etc., etc. The fundamental differences between the Turkish regime of 1960 and the junta of Galtieri show up the absurdity of the idea that the Argentine workers could repeat what the Turkish workers did. Aren't 15,000 "disappearances" proof enough of this?

STAN CROOKE Glasgow