Marxists and iational -liberation

Scan page 7

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.

Jette Kroman (SO 96)

sums up the feelings of many comrades in other lands who find themselves in general sympathy with Socialist Organiser but profoundly disagree with the arguments it put forward over the Falklands.

Whereas SO argued for defeatism on both sides, many argued that British and Argentinian workers should support with various degrees of criticism the Junta's attempt to reclaim the Islands.

As dette argues, the central plank for this position is that whatever the subjective desires of Galtieri, 'the invasion was objectively anti-imperialist and historically progressive' . This I believe to be incorrect.

blanche Marxists do not give general carte blanche support to nationalist struggles. We support them even where led by anti-working class forces where there is a specific progressive content, where the struggle, by -being successful, will remove nationalist blinkers which tie workers in both oppressor and oppressed country to their bourgeoisie, and weaken imperialism as a world system.

It is because of their specific progressive content in this sense that Marxists have supported the struggles of India and Ireland against Britain and China against Japan.

Concrete analysis reveals no such progressive contact to Galtieri's war. But it was between an imperialist and a dependent nation? . We would agree that this is a factor to be taken into account in our analysis, bearing in mind the transformations in world imperialism in the last 70 years.

We would profoundly disagree that it is the sole factor, the final test of whether or not Marxists support nationalist struggles, and that all we need to do is read off whether the combatants are First or Fourth Division clients of US imperialism.

The crucial test remains: was the specific content of Galtieri's invasion 'objectively anti-imperialist and historically progressive'? The answer surely is 'no' a thousand times. 'no'!

How would the capture of a few barren rocks have led to a blow against Imperialism? It would have had the same internal impact as Mussolini's success in Ethiopia and shifted the balance of forces in Buenos Aires in favour of imperial ism. The USA would have had few problems in coming to terms with the fact that Suez had been repeated as farce, that Britain had dropped and Argentina risen a few notches in the table of trusty client states, and that Thatcher's ruffled feathers needed massaging.

It manages far more intractable problems between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Why should a victorious Junta not strengtber its ties with US imperialism? Why would the sacrifice of the prestige of the maverick Prime Minister of a declining power weaken imperialisin when the gain would be a more pliant Latin American sub-continent?

I can go no further in the space allotted but I hope this gives some understanding to our Danish comrades as to why we argued as we did.

Comradely, Carol Hobbs, Bolto