Malvinas and Marxism (was Re: The Intifada and Marxism)

Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at
Mon Feb 19 13:33:16 MST 2001

En relación a The Intifada and Marxism,
el 19 Feb 01, a las 15:48, Philip Ferguson dijo:

> During the Argentina-Britain war on the Falklands,

Would it be a bit too bothersome to remind you that if you accept the Falklands
as a name you are also accepting British Imperialism? The islands' name is
Malvinas, from Malouines (first settlers came from St. Malo, France). If I am
not wrong, Falklands is the name of a family which was later imposed on the

> the CWI in Britain
> basically took the side of British imperialism, virulently opposing calls
> for the british armada to be withdrawn.  I was in the Militant-dominated
> Labour Party Young Socilaists at the time and our branch (Peckham),
> ... moved an emergency motion at the LPYS conference that the
> LPYS adopt a position for British withdrawal.  This position was denounced
> by ... Militant.  Militant leaders['s] ... whole emphasis was how a defeat for
> Argentina could bring down the Galtieri dicattorship.  Of course, since
> we were in Britain, our man focus on Marxists should have been how a
> defeat for British imperialism could bring down the Thatcher regime and
> create a crisis for the British imperialist state.

In fact, the defeat of Argentina in the Malvinas (a defeat that is still
greeted by many Argentineans with the motto "I did not surrender", while others
cheer it as if it had been a present from Heavens) allowed for a smooth
transition from the military to civilians _without even touching the structural
schema imposed by the 1976-83 regime_. This was, in fact, the dilemma of
imperialists since Galtieri defeated the Viola clique (who were intent in
returning formal power to civilians as far back as 1980) and the military
showed that they would not withdraw without pressure. The military defeat was
achieved through a combination of technical inability, political blindness and
callous cynicism by the high Argentinean command. Galtieri, who was essentially
a stupid man (who else could have been praised by Bush father as a "majestic
General"?), with a simpleton view of things political, discovered that the war
was for real too late for his good political health. And he also discovered
that it was HIS head that was at stake. That is why on that opportunity he made
one of the few good things in his life: he decided to keep fighting.

For a millisecond, Galtieri was a better Marxist than those pro-imperialist
socialists Phil talks about.

Yes, the rigth of criticism must be earned, as Phil has so simply put it.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list