Forwarded from Anthony (Malvinas)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Lenin would have clipped all extraneous text before replying to a message, so 
should you.
~~~~~~~~~
I would like to make a few comments on the debate between Nestor and
Xxxx Xxxxxx.

I want to touch the following aspects:

*The Malvinas

*Argentina's settler state status

*Nestor's alleged call to jail socialists opposed to the Malvinas
war.

I. The Malvinas

Where should revolutionaries, and especially Marxists, stand on
territorial borders of different countries? For that matter, where
should anyone interested in justice, peace, and social equality stand
on this kind of issue?

Xxxx Lerher seems to think that whoever happens to be living on a
piece of property should be able to determine which country it is a
part of.

History has proven that, often, whoever is occupying a piece of real
estate DOES determine which country it is a part of. The history of
the world in fact, has in large part been a history of armed struggle
for the control of land.

All of the settler states in modern history, starting with Northern
Ireland and continuing to the state of Israel, and including the
United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, were
formed in such genocidal wars for land.

The Malvina Islands are a footnote in that history. They were annexed
to Great Britain in precisely the same way.

Probably Andy thinks the idea that all of the above mentioned settler
states should be returned to their previous 'owners' represents sheer
lunacy.

He does - very graciously - concede that Palestinians should have the
right to return to Israel.

Marxism has always had a trend within it that sided with England, and
its colonies, in the expropriation of land of other people - and the
settlement of colonists from the British Isles on those lands.

Andy is the modern representative of that trend: the pro-imperialist
trend.

On the other hand there has always been a trend within Marxism that
opposed this kind of imperialist expansion. Marx and Engels wavered
between the two positions, Lenin and Trotsky - and with them the
Third International, ended the wavering for most Marxists in the
first congresses of the Communist International which took firm,
unequivocal positions against all annexations by imperialist powers.

It never really, however, resolved the problem about what to do about
land conquered before the Third International was formed.

So, if Andy wants to stand on Marxist tradition, he can concoct some
kind of legalistic argument based on precedent.

However, if Andy sees Marxism as a revolutionary tradition, which
champions the interests of the oppressed against the oppressors, he
will drop the formalistic arguments and look the truth in the face.

Great Britain has always been - since it was formed - an imperialist
country (though not  from the beginning in the sense of Lenin's
little pamphlet). It even was honest enough to call itself an empire.

Argentina, since it was formed, has always been a country oppressed
by imperialism.

The Malvinas are historically and geographically part of Argentina -
and are not remotely connected to Great Britain except by a barbaric
act of conquest.

Period.

Andy can side with British imperialism, or side with an oppressed
nation against it.

That's a fact, Jack.

And, it doesn't matter if Argentina is a settler state, if its
government is made up of fascists, Satanists, Martians, Peronists,
Generals, or Rap artists. What matters is that it is not an
imperialist country, is an oppressed country, and historically and
geographically has a right to the Malvinas.

Historically, and geographically, the Malvinas are a part of
Argentina, and are as much a part of Great Britain as say, Dublin or
New Delhi are. Socially, they are as much a part of Great Britain is
as, Aukland, and Wellington - where the people at least had the sense
to become more or less independent of the motherland.

II.  Is Argentina a settler state?

With all due respect to Nestor, I think his arguments are weak. I
think Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile all qualify as settler states.
Unlike the rest of Latin America, the working class and petty
bourgeoisie largely consist of immigrants, children of immigrants,
grandchildren of immigrants, etc.

Immigrants from Europe.

No matter how much effort has been put into falsifying statistics,
the working classes of these countries look a lot more like people in
Southern Europe than Native Americans.

Much more importantly, they ARE like Southern Europeans culturally,
politically, and by their personal and family traditions.

My personal experience in Argentina is limited to a few visits to
Buenos Aires when I was a member of the IWL(FI) [Internationalist
Workers League (Fourth International) - the current led by Nahuel
Moreno.] I met with, and socialized with leftists - Trotskyists,
members of the Communist Party, university students, and trade
unionists - including many Peronists.

I was struck by the fact that they were very, very, white. And
usually racist without knowing it. In fact, they usually never
understood why I felt insulted by their jokes.

They were a stark contrast to my comrades in the IWL(FI) from Brazil,
Colombia, Peru and elsewhere in Latin America who were also offended
by the racism of the Argentinean comrades.

My personal experience, anecdotal, backs up the very obvious
differences between the working classes of Latin America.

Outside of the Southern cone, the workers are mixed - European,
indigenous, and black. The cultures of those countries - the
bourgeois cultures - celebrate multiculturalism in song, dance,
theater, poetry, and novels. They have to, even if in some places the
high bourgeoisie is very white, and hate people who aren't (Peru).

In Argentina, and the Southern Cone (with the probable exception of
Paraguay) the working class and petty bourgeoisie look - and think -
white. And the bourgeois culture DOES not celebrate multiculturalism.
In Argentina it boasts of how European it is.

The bourgeois cultures of these countries reflect - in a distorted
way - the truth.

Having said this, is not to say that I think the countries of the
Southern Cone are imperialist countries - they are not.

They are a separate category of country - distinct from the
imperialist settler states like the USA, Canada, Australia, South
Africa, and Israel. (I am not sure where to put New Zealand, maybe
Phil can help.)

They are not for two reasons:

*None of the countries of the Southern cone has military or political
dominance over any other country, nor do any of them have any
significant foreign investment that gives them any kind of dominance
outside of their borders. To the contrary, they are dominated by
foreign capital.

*None of the countries of the southern cone is able to achieve that
kind of dominance through military, political or economic means.

III. Did Nestor say 'socialists who opposed the war over the Malvinas
should have been jailed', or words to that effect? Louis looked, and
so did I. I went back to 9/18 and could not find the offending
statement. I also could not find any denial by Nestor that he ever
said such a thing. So, can Andy or Nestor please supply the precise
quote?

In any case, I agree with the statement Nestor is supposed to have
made.

If any one calling themselves a socialist had advocated lynching
black people in Alabama, (or anywhere else) real socialists should
have shot them.

This is not, as you might think, a surreal example. The Populist
Party split over precisely the issue I am talking about (many of them
thought they were socialists), and they did shoot each other.

I would rather fight side by side with someone who believes in Allah,
Jehovah, a Jaguar God, or whatever - than some fucking imperialist
kiss-ass racist motherfucker who calls himself for some mistaken
reason, and to real socialists and Marxists everlasting shame - a
socialist or marxist.

But, to give Andy the benefit of the doubt, I think he should read
more, think more, and make a decision about which side he is on.
Imperialism's side, or the side of the oppressed.

Like I said, All the best, Anthony

P.S. I recommend that Andy, and anyone else on the list who has not ,
carefully read the documents of the first Five Years of the Communist
International.


--
Louis Proyect, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx on 10/23/2001

Marxism list: http://www.marxmail.org