Re: [A-List] Argentine spontaneous insurrection(s)

[Mark Jones <mark.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 31/12/2001 18:49, Mac wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Jones" <mark.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I don't think Galtieri was worth supporting. In
> > any case, revolutionary defeatism as a policy surely never embraces a
> > desire for victory by the enemy.
> >
> This ius a neat slight of hand perhaps, but to call for the American withdrawl
> from Vietnam is to call for a Vietnamese victory- just as it would be to call
> for the defeat of Chiang Kai-Shek remnants in a battle with the mainland is to
> call for a Victory for the People's Republic- etc. etc.
>
> To state that Galtieri wasn't worth supporting is to unworthily make he the
> issue. This is precisely the box that the Thatcherites wanted you in the UK to
> fall inside of. But to call for the return (by any means) of indigenous
> Argentine lands to the Argentine state is basic Lenin.

I don't think it *is* basic Lenin, altho what do I know? Lenin called for
an end to the war with kaiser Germany. He also (evidently) was materially
supported by the Germans. For this he has been called a German agent who
sought the defeat of his own country. However Lenin did not seek a German
victory, but on the contrary, he sought a revolution in Germany which could
only come about by means of the military defeat of Germany. Would not Lenin
have called for an end to Thatcher's war against Argentine imperialism?
Presumably, yes. But why? Not in order to 'return indigenous Argentine
lands to the Argentine state' as you put it.  That would only have
entrenched the Galtieri regime, which was in no-one's interests except some
comprador circles and financial oligarchs: and ironically, in the interests
also of  the Thatcher govenrment which most certainly did not seek the
destruction of the Argentinian state. Lenin, if one goes by what the man
actually did, would have sought the destruction of the Argentine state, not
its strengthening. Far from being unworthy, my position  was leninist. Or
so i thought anyway.


Mark