"The Labour Party has always been a pro-war party" - Discuss

[Belushi]

Did it? Michael Foot was on the radio the other day saying that Chamberlaine & Halifax would have been killed had they tried to appease an invading German army. I don't know the history of 30s electoral positions though.

Interesting programme actually, still availablehere, about revolutionary communists using experience gained in Spain to set up the start of a guerrila Home Guard at the start of WW2. A very different take on the Dads Army myth.

I heard a bit of that and very interesting it was too, the authorities were worried that the Home Guard contained too many Socialists and Spanish Vets who would turn on them if they attempted a peace deal with the Nazis.

 

[newbie]

and that the workers were being given weapons and training in using them, plus bombmaking, by revolutionaries.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

So, in effect, your position was "For the victory of Galtieri's right-wing military junta"? And this progressive slogan would have inspired a revolutionary, anti-imperialist consciousness in Britain?

My personal position was for a defeat of british imperialism which, yes, meant that I was for a military victory by Argentina, but no support for the dictatorship. I explained this to anybody who asked me for my opinion at the time including members of the Labour Party and LPYS. But, no, I don't think that was a slogan that would have 'inspired a revolutionary, anti-imperialist consciousness in Britain' - there would have been a better chance of achieving that by advancing the slogan 'bring back the fleet'.

Of course in some countries and among some populations, the former was supported, eg some sections of the irish community in Britain were very definitely for the defeat of Britain, because they did see the war as a colonial war of conquest. I would have confined the debate on the 'defeatist' slogans to the inside pages of magazines and journals, while maximising propaganda around the 'bring the troops home' type slogan that has a broader resonance when it is your own government at war. Exactly the same situation applied in the Vietnam War where inside the US, 'out now!' was the key slogan, while in Britain and elsewhere 'Victory to the NLF' was a perfectly appropriately slogan.

The debate with Militant was in the context that they claimed to be a revolutionary trotskyist organisation, part of a revolutionary international, but their only 'opposition' to the war was the entirely meaningless call for a 'socialist federation'!

In terms of the LPYS, just getting them to agree the LPYS should support the slogans of CND - 'No Cruise!', 'unilateral nuclear disarmament' etc (which they said were 'abstract', 'pacifist', 'middle-class') was a hard enough battle, though they did eventually come round!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

[snip imaginary leaflet and bizarre attempts to argue that a slogan got an echo in the working class because one CLP endorsed it]

I defend Militant because it was (and its successor is) the only serious attempt to build a Marxist organisation rooted in the working class in Britain since the collapse of the old RCP and before that since the early days of the Communist Party.

Did Militant make mistakes? Many of them and the Socialist Party continues to make mistakes today. Which doesn't change the central point at all.

So was opposing 'Bring the Fleet Back' and counterposing a 'Socialist Federation of Britain, Argentina and the Falklands', one of these mistakes or not? Despite all the bluster, I think we deserve an answer.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

My personal position was for a defeat of british imperialism which, yes, meant that I was for a military victory by Argentina, but no support for the dictatorship.

The possibility that Argentina could secure a military victory without that victory strengthening the dictatorship, is one that only ever existed in your imagination (not withstanding the quote you will dredge up from some fraction of one of the fourth internationals frothing about the revolutionary potential afforded by the war). It was fantasy politics that says so much more about your commitment to an abstracted leninist ideology rather than material circumstances.

Louis Mac

 

[articul8]

My personal position was for a defeat of british imperialism which, yes, meant that I was for a military victory by Argentina, but no support for the dictatorship. I explained this to anybody who asked me for my opinion at the time including members of the Labour Party and LPYS. But, no, I don't think that was a slogan that would have 'inspired a revolutionary, anti-imperialist consciousness in Britain' - there would have been a better chance of achieving that by advancing the slogan 'bring back the fleet'.

And if the fleet had been brought back? Wouldn't that have reinforced the position of the reactionary junta you say you didn't support?

The drive to repossess the Malvinas was brought up by Galtieri in a bid to appeal to a unifying reactionary nationalist sentiment which would cut across the potential for militant working class opposition. Victory for the Argentinia over the Malvinas could, given the existing balance of class forces, have bolstered the junta's prestige and shaky hold on power, and thereby also helped the U.S to bolster its position as super-power by weakening the position of the organised w/c across the Americas).
[Hence, Reagan's equivocation - he wouldn't have wanted the British impeded in the ability to support future US military action, but equally, didn't want the junta destabilised].

Incidentally, whilst we're on the subject of Vietnam You say "Victory to the NLF" was a perfectly appropriate slogan in Britain. Didn't it sow illusions in the leaderships fatally stagist conception of revolution, in an organisation with a military/guerillistic character lacking an active base in the urban proletariat, and (not unrelatedly) in a bureaucratic leadership with a history of brutally repressing Trotskyist activists?

 

[newbie]

The possibility that Argentina could secure a military victory without that victory strengthening the dictatorship, is one that only ever existed in your imagination (not withstanding the quote you will dredge up from some fraction of one of the fourth internationals frothing about the revolutionary potential afforded by the war). It was fantasy politics that says so much more about your commitment to an abstracted leninist ideology rather than material circumstances.

Louis Mac

yes. If ever a situation cried out for mediation, compromise and local self-determination it was that one. Demanding that the fleet held off until all diplomatic options had been well and truly exhausted was sane (if unpopular), calling for victory to a dictator, or revolution in a country half a world away was downright daft. But as it was, Thatcher had face to save and an election to win.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

The possibility that Argentina could secure a military victory without that victory strengthening the dictatorship, is one that only ever existed in your imagination (not withstanding the quote you will dredge up from some fraction of one of the fourth internationals frothing about the revolutionary potential afforded by the war). It was fantasy politics that says so much more about your commitment to an abstracted leninist ideology rather than material circumstances.

Louis Mac

So, presumably, you were for the military victory of Britain then? As were the Tory Party, Labour Party and Liberals/SDP... And that didn't strengthened the Thatcher government did it?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So, presumably, you were for the military victory of Britain then? As were the Tory Party, Labour Party and Liberals/SDP... And that didn't strengthened the Thatcher government did it?

No FG, I was for stopping our participation in the war not winning it; in which context calling for the defeat of UK forces would have had all the appealing resonance of a stale fart.

BTW it is a bit sad that given your obvious fertile imagination you limit yourself to choosing between Thatcher and Galtieri; perhaps it's time to ditch all that my enemy's enemy is my friend baggage.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[sihhi]

[Hence, Reagan's equivocation - he wouldn't have wanted the British impeded in the ability to support future US military action, but equally, didn't want the junta destabilised].

I don't know. Reagan was happy as long as the successor regime was a suitable one. Too hasty a collapse or one which involved leftist elements was potentially dangerous.

When they had people like Alfonsin and Menem ready to do privatisations in Peronist clothes- they offered no support to the junta.

Incidentally recently documents came out from Chile showing that Pinochet (Thatcher's friend) had actually helped the Argentine air force actually during the conflict

 

[Fisher_Gate]

No FG, I was for stopping our participation in the war not winning it; in which context calling for the defeat of UK forces would have had all the appealing resonance of a stale fart.

BTW it is a bit sad that given your obvious fertile imagination you limit yourself to choosing between Thatcher and Galtieri; perhaps it's time to ditch all that my enemy's enemy is my friend baggage.

Cheers - Louis Mac

So you supported the call for the withdrawal of fleet? And what then, once the shooting started?

I don't support the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' argument - if Britain had gone to war with (say) Japan over ownership of disputed islands, I wouldn't have called for a victory for Japan. Argentina was a semi-colonial country being attacked by an imperialist state seeking to reinforce a colonialist situation. Negotiation was preferable to fighting and stopping a war was the first priority for socialists in this country, but once the fighting started I have no compuction about saying I preferred the military victory of Argentina to that of Britain. Whether it was Thatcher or Galtieri who was in charge of their respective countries was irrelevant to that argument. This was the whole point of the polemic with Militant over Trotsky's position on Abysinnia - he polemicised with the leaders of the centrist ILP, who refused to support Abyssinia because it was run by a dictator. Militant tried to argue the same position as the ILP on 'not supporting dictators' (although at times they also verged on the social chauvinist position of supporting a democratic country against a dictatorship, as with the social democrats and the first world war).

 

[articul8]

No, the situations aren't remotely comparable. Abyssinia was invaded by Italy ie. was clearly an oppressed nation under direct attack (whatever its leadership).

The Malvinas, however, had been under the control of British imperialism for a substantial period of time. Galtieri's decision to reclaim the territory was a deliberate attempt to cut across rising worker militancy by stimulating a reactionary nationalist mood.

(edit - let's see your evidence that Militant supported a Thatcher victory then...)

(and BTW, am still waiting for some comeback on my criticisms of your "victory to the NLF" position).

 

[Bigdavalad]

The Malvinas, however, had been under the control of British imperialism for a substantial period of time. Galtieri's decision to reclaim the territory was a deliberate attempt to cut across rising worker militancy by stimulating a reactionary nationalist mood.

How were Argentina reclaiming the Falklands when the British made the first recorded landing on the islands and the Argentinian claim is based entirely on the fact that Spain had a penal colony on there for a few months, before the US Navy got rid of them in 1833?

The people who live there wish to be British, therefore the islands should stay British until they change their mind.

 

[sihhi]

This week's award for best gobbledegook relating to "imperialism"

goes to Fisher Gate

Argentina was a semi-colonial country being attacked by an imperialist state seeking to reinforce a colonialist situation

 

[Fisher_Gate]

goes to Fisher Gate

Thank you - on behalf of my mentor, the late, lamented Dave Spart, I humbly accept this award. Words cannot express how much of an honour zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Fisher_Gate]

How were Argentina reclaiming the Falklands when the British made the first recorded landing on the islands and the Argentinian claim is based entirely on the fact that Spain had a penal colony on there for a few months, before the US Navy got rid of them in 1833?

The people who live there wish to be British, therefore the islands should stay British until they change their mind.

The Treaty of Utrecht gave it to Spain in 1713, but both Britain and France tried to establish settlements. A Spanish colony was established in 1767, taking over from the French who withdrew their claim. The Argentinian state claimed it in 1816 immediately following their independence from Spain. The British claim was made in 1833 and a 'colonial administration' (their words not mine) was declared from 1842. Argentina never withdrew their claim to the islands and UN resolution 2065 in 1965 declared it a 'colonial problem' (sic) to be settled peacefully between Britain and Argentina. But unlike other decolonisations by the British Empire, Britain refused to relinquish control.

 

[Bigdavalad]

The Treaty of Utrecht gave it to Spain in 1713, but both Britain and France tried to establish settlements. A Spanish colony was established in 1767, taking over from the French who withdrew their claim. The Argentinian state claimed it in 1816 immediately following their independence from Spain. The British claim was made in 1833 and a 'colonial administration' (their words not mine) was declared from 1842. Argentina never withdrew their claim to the islands and UN resolution 2065 in 1965 declared it a 'colonial problem' (sic) to be settled peacefully between Britain and Argentina. But unlike other decolonisations by the British Empire, Britain refused to relinquish control.

But the people wish to stay British, why should their wishes not be heeded just because Argentina would quite like the Islands themselves?

 

[JHE]

The Treaty of Utrecht gave it to Spain in 1713, but both Britain and France tried to establish settlements. A Spanish colony was established in 1767, taking over from the French who withdrew their claim. The Argentinian state claimed it in 1816 immediately following their independence from Spain. The British claim was made in 1833 and a 'colonial administration' (their words not mine) was declared from 1842. Argentina never withdrew their claim to the islands and UN resolution 2065 in 1965 declared it a 'colonial problem' (sic) to be settled peacefully between Britain and Argentina. But unlike other decolonisations by the British Empire, Britain refused to relinquish control.

As you very well know, it is not like the colonies who wanted not to be British. The Falkland Islanders do not want to become Argentinian.

If the point of your potted history is that, in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the Falkland Islands had a complex history, then I say, 'sound point, well made!'

On the other hand, if your point is to hold up the Treaty of Utrecht as a guide to who should have the Falkland Islands, then two points...

1. I see no reason why an independent Argentina should inherit rights to the Falkland Islands from Imperial Spain.

2. Let's remember that the Treaty of Utrecht also gave both Gibraltar and Minorca to Britain. I don't know if you think either of those two places should be British. I'm all for respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians (i.e., not to become part of Spain), but - since the Menorquinos show no sign of wanting to be ruled by Britain - I wouldn't support any dotty British attempt to retake Minorca. Would you? (Fortunately, there's no risk of any such thing.)

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'd still like to what people mean by only raising things if they have resonance, especially if they are trotskyists, like Nigel. Are you saying Nigel that you think the Bolsheviks were wrong to raise the slogan about turning the imperialist war into a civil war, because it certainly didn't have any resonance when they first raised it.

I'd also like to know Nigel why "withdraw the fleet" wasn't ok because it didnt' have a resonance, yet calling for a socialist federation of Argentina, Britain and the Falkland Islands was......

 

[Chuck Wilson]

The possibility that Argentina could secure a military victory without that victory strengthening the dictatorship, is one that only ever existed in your imagination (not withstanding the quote you will dredge up from some fraction of one of the fourth internationals frothing about the revolutionary potential afforded by the war). It was fantasy politics that says so much more about your commitment to an abstracted leninist ideology rather than material circumstances.

Louis Mac

Spot on Louis. I always grimmaced when I heard the 'victory to Argentina' line followed by the 'but we don't actually support the junta' .

Any one else going to own up to wanting the Argies to win and hence strengthen the junta?

 

[newbie]

wasn't only grimacing though. That was the only time I've ever been spat at on a march: whether opposition to the task force would have attracted such hatred without the loonies supporting Argentinians killing Brits is hard to know, of course.