Re: [Marxism] A "Clash of Civilizations, " Sending Pink Sparks Flying?

[Einde O'Callaghan <einde@xxxxxx>]

  Ian Pace wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
> <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] A "Clash of Civilizations, " Sending Pink Sparks
> Flying?
>
>
>
> > Ian Pace wrote:
> >
> > > Where is the quote from Trotsky about supporting a right wing third
>
> world
>
> > > regime against a liberal imperialist Western one who wants to dominate
>
> it
>
> > > (or something along those lines)?
> >
> > From an interview given an Argentine journalist on September 23, 1938:
> >
> > In order to understand correctly the nature of the coming events we must
> > first of all reject ... the false ... theory that the coming war will be
> > a war between fascism and "democracy." ... I will take the most simple
> > and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime
> > that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume,
> > however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with
> > Brazil. I ask you on whose side of that conflict will the working class
> > be? I will answer for myself personally -- in this case I will be on the
> > side of "fascist" Brazil against "democratic" Great Britain. Why?
> > Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of
> > democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put
> > another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains in
> > Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a
> > mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country
> > and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship.
>
> The only problem I have with this (as a point to defend), is how can it be
> applied to Britain and Argentina in the Falklands dispute?  A stupid
> colonial war, also to raise Thatcher's flagging popularity, but the opposite
> of what Trotsky suggested occurred - the war led to the fall of Galtieri.
Britain didn't occupy the defeated country and impose a regime as
Trotsky suggested would be the case in his hypothetical war between
Brazil and Britain (unlike what the US has done in Iraq -here Trotsky's
description fits quite well as far as it goes).

Defeat in war often leads to revolutionary upheavals in the defeated
country (particularly if it isn't actually occupied by foreign troops) -
but one thing can be certain - the victory of an imperialist power in a
war against any kind of opponent tends to lead to the consolidation of
the regime in the imperialist country. This is certainly what happened
with Thatcher, who was on her last legs before the Falklands/Malvinas War.

Einde O'Callaghan


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism