A cash bung? From my fucking taxes?

Go fuck yourself, Dave. If you want that, you fucking fund it. I'm tired of being butt-fucked to finance every self-righteous nonsense.

Whatever will inconvenience Obnoxio the most gets my vote.

I don't understand how silly fucks can sit on their arses in sweatshop sewn clothes, chewing child-labour grown chocolate bars and drinking a good old Coca-Cola, and moan about a bit of tax.

I'd offer them independence with a guarantee of military protection. It's not like they booted an indigenous population into the sea/otherwise oppressed one.

Plus right of residence/dual nationality are likely to mean jack shit next time Aregentina fancies another dabble at fascism.

I was a leftie at the time, though a few years older than you. But I failed to see how any UK trade unionist could support a regime that would throw them out of helicopters if they were in Argentina. Argentina was far closer to a fascist dictatorship than it was to a democracy.

I suppose for many on the left it was a case of "my country, wrong or wrong".

Dave, did you ever think about where the money you paid for Lebanese hashish was ending up ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zElkA9zbz60

"The case for the return [of] the Malvinas to what is now a democratic Argentina is pretty much unanswerable": WTF? Leave aside the mere accident of geography - which is the only basis for Argentina's aim, and which would make the Channel Islands French and Greenland Canadian - how about the democratic rights of the people who actually live on the islands? I think you'll find it's called "self-determination", and that Marxists used to take the concept very seriously indeed.

Typed too quickly - "aim" should be "claim".

ya lo habia dicho Trotsky a propósito de un ejemplo hipotético de guerra entre un Brasil "fascista" y una "Inglaterra" democrática: la tarea de los revolucionarios sería trabajar por la derrota del imperialismo. Una victoria de la "democracia" imperialista implicaría una doble cadena sobre los pueblos del Tercer Mundo.
No es obligatorio para un izquierdista seguir este consejo de Trotsky, pero al menos sus supuestos "discípulos" (SWP, Militant, Socialist Organizer) deberían reflexionar sobre su postura vergonzosamente nacional-imperialista.
Saludos!

A Google Translation of the above:

"Trotsky had already said about a hypothetical example of war between Brazil "fascist" and an "England" of democracy: the task of revolutionaries would be to work for the defeat of imperialism. A victory of "democracy" imperialist mean double chain on Third World peoples.

It is not mandatory for a leftist follow Trotsky's advice, but at least their supposed "followers" (SWP, Militant, Socialist Organiser) should reflect on their national-imperialist stance shamefully.

Greetings!"

I salute the Argentinian comrade for reminding the left in Britain that many of them adopted a shameful national chauvinist stance.

Algunos en el Britain apoyaba la derrota de las fuerzas británicas.

Internacional de saludo a usted, comrade.

Have to disagree with you on this one, Dave. I think that Norman Geras gets it about right.

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2010/02/sovereignty-and-the-general-assembly.html

Don't really see why the notion of ownership by proximity/historical association should be any more compelling than claims of ownership by colonisation or imperial conquest. It's what the people living there want that matters.

There were three reasons why I supported the task force:

1. Aggression should not prosper.
2. Force should not be used to settle disputes.
3. Not the job of outsiders to tell the locals how to live.

On that basis I also supported the Serbs back in 1999 and the Iraqis and Afghans today.

There must have been political groups analogous to the ‘pro-war left’ of recent years, although I was not aware of them at the time.

There was one called the Labour Party - wonder what happened to it? I remember a Labour MP filling a page in New Socialist with a defence of "the right of a free people to choose who rules them". I guess the AWL, as they then weren't, thought something similar.

Funny old world, I can't remember many things nowadays but that I did.

I was against the Argentinians attacking the Falkland Islands and using conscripts as cannon fodder, but equally the anomaly of a lump of rock in the middle of nowhere being British got right up my nose.

Thatcher's hectoring and that monotone moronic civil servant giving out guff made it worse, not forgetting the Belgrano.

Years on and I've mellowed a bit, and what most people won't tell you about Argentina is that it is a settler state.

They have largely done away with the indigenous peoples, who now probably comprise only 1% of the population.

Argentina is made up of settlers obviously from Spain, not forgetting Italy, Germany and many other European countries, etc so you could equally argue they have as much claim to Las Malvinas as they do to the Alps

Personally, if someone wants to live on a rock in the middle of nowhere I'd let them.

Politically, it would probably be advantageous for the British and Argentinian government to split overall revenues from the gas and oil fields between themselves, with a chunk making that rock a bit nicer.

Still, I wonder how modern day "anti-imperialists" view this conflict ?

What is the SP, SWP, SSP Respect lines on it?

Anyone know?

Socialist Organiser - the AWL as is now - opposed Britain's war and Argentina's. There certainly were leftists in Argentina who opposed the junta's chauvinistic adventure.

Support for the right of a small group of people not have military dictatorship imposed on them does not equal 'the status quo' - and really, Dave, that's beneath you.

Didn't Socialist Organiser break into bits over the Malvinas war?

Socialist Organiser didn't just change its name, now did it?

Workers Power called for the defeat of Britain and the victory of Argentina.

Not the Falklands as British per se, Modernity, but entitled to be governed as the inhabitants wish - and if that means killing conscripts to preserve that right then so be it. Take it up with Buenos Aires.

Argentina is a creole polity, to go all political science on you, and that is rare in Latin America. I think only Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile share that with them. They are widely disliked. When their economy went tits up, all it meant was free entertainment and lots of whores for the rest of us. That's how much countries like Mexico give a stuff about them.

Dave:"I think I’m right to recall that the Socialist Workers’ Party said more or less the same (ie victory to Argentina -JD), albeit not quite so stridently."

No, you're wrong about that, Dave. In an article by Duncan Hallas in the Socialist Review at the time, the SWP made it quite clear that it did *not* regard Argentina's invasion as a legitimate "anti colonial" act and that they did *not* favour an Argentinian victory. Although, as I recall, Hallas for some unaccountable reason also pooh-poohed the idea of the Falklander's right to self-determination.

I believe that Alex Callinicos, many years later, retrospectively "corrected" Hallas and came out for a time-warp Argentinian victory.

By the way, Dave: I still think the right of peoples (not just "nations") to self determination is an absolute, indivisible principle and therefore your suggestion of, in effect, overruling their wish to remain part of Britain, is completely unacceptable. The point about a "colony" is ahistorical and beside the point.

Why are you allowing a nazi/fascist leave comments on your blog?

get rid of exile cunt. Thank you.

@Clive

You lie, or at least seriously mislead.

Your pro-British imperialism line was overturned.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19117508/Trotskyist-History-No-1 Page 51

Little Willy,

Guess what? I am in London. Drop me a line and we can arrange a nice long chat.

I take the geographical position here. The Falklands should belong to Argentina. They should have the fishing rights and the oil rights.

I am sure there are some commenters on here still crying over the loss of Hong Kong.

Clive You lie, or at least seriously mislead. Your pro-British imperialism line was overturned.

But the group which is now the AWL was the people who had that 'line', which was what was being referred to. (And I'm assuming most people, if they're interested, are interested in the political argument, not the splits and emergency conferences with packed majorities).

And it wasn't pro-imperialist.

Like the greedheaded Mercedes-drining gombeens of Fianna Fail and their intermittent interest in the 'Occupied Six Counties' of Norn Iron, Argentinian politicoes do not really give a stuff about the Malvinas [named after St Malo in France] but the issue is one which can be dragged out of the back of the cupboard by any Argentinian government in trouble.

Ideally, the Falklanders ought to have their rights respected and, absurd though it might sound for a place with a tiny poplation, have an independent country of their own which enjoys a defence agreement with Britain [as does, or did, Belize - once threatened by Guatemalan annexation on the grounds that x centuries ago ...]

No, partly because Hong Kong did not want to remain British, but also because the New Territories were only ever leased from China and that lease ran out in 1997.

Big difference.

It is marvellous how the complex situation in Las Malvinas is reduced to simple geography by some supposed "anti-imperialists" (see Johnno’s comment above)

You might suppose that they have given some thought to the issues surrounding self-determination, colonialism and who does what to whom, but no.

They would gladly hand over Las Malvinas to the settler state, Argentina.

Its peculiar that the British should be so interested in the South Atlantic but have so little historical knowledge of the countries of the region.

Personally, I favour self-determination for the Falkland Islanders, the alternative from the anti-imperialist mindset would appear to be something like Diego Garcia.

I assume that most anti-imperialists won’t be familiar with that particular rock, the two thousand or so inhabitants were unceremonially deported from their own living space by the British government and the Island leased to the Americans as a monitoring station.

It was grossly unfair and unjust, yet the inhabitants of Diego Garcia have received little justice in the British courts.

I suppose if geographically and historically challenged anti-imperialists were to employ their own solution on the Falkland Islands then the residents would be turfed out and left homeless, probably penniless and at the whim of the British or the Argentinian governments.

That’s not something they’d want themselves, so it seems hard to understand why they’d recommend such treatment for the Falkland Islanders, but such are the contradictions in modern day “anti-imperialism”.

The point, Modernity, is that the Balliolocracy of the F.O. could and did represent the Chagossians as weird seminaked 'Man Fridays' and 'Tarzans' speaking a weird Frenchy-Englishy creole and fishing in the lagoons from canoes while the Falklanders were indisputably white and undeniably English-speaking people-very-much-like-us.

If the Falklands issue had been in the effete and traitorous hands of the FO, by now the Argentinian flag would have been flying over the Malvinas for decades.

FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS ONLY:
The very discreditable Chagossian tale also involves Aldabra, locality-specific giant tortoises, Tam Dalyell and the American insistance - an insistance which was the result of bitter experience in Okinawa and elsewhere - that the place to be leased from the Brits was to be wholly and totally uninhabited.

A PERSONAL MEMOIR:
The 'Task Force' sailed off to the South Atlantic not long before my daughter was born. She's now a mother herself.

It is not really strange that the historical facts of the occupation of the islands by the British, and their seizure from an independent Argentina are well known across South America and little known here.
I was only 13 at the time, but even then I thought that paying each Falklander a million quid to fuck off elsewhere would be better than a war. And as it turned out, about a third of the cost (financially to Britian, never mind the dead).

"1. Aggression should not prosper.
2. Force should not be used to settle disputes.
3. Not the job of outsiders to tell the locals how to live."

Those seem like good reasons to reject the seizure of the islands by an imperial force from another hemisphere.

I was in Dijon in France when the war broke out, my exchange partner frantically turning a globe to point out this tiny spot on the map that my country was at war with. When I returned home I was appalled that so many of my schoolmates who'd never uttered a political thought, were now so jingoistic about the "Argies". I was quite disappointed that they didn't win, and Thatcher sailed to election victory over their dead bodies.

I was only 17 at the time and less inclined to a toke than Dave. I did get quoted in the local paper for speaking at an anti-war rally. Can't help noticing some strange interpretations of history here. In no particular order:
1. As Simon Jenkins noted in the Guardian yesterday, and many have before, even inside the Foreign Office it's well-known that Britain's territorial claim to the islands is, to use a technical legal term, very iffy.
2. Diego Garcia - amongst other things in 1982 a new government was elected in Mauritius on a platform of returning the evicted islanders to their homeland. Much respect for the wishes of the (former) islanders didn't ensue.
3. Cecil Parkinson - remember him? - had given a Queens award for arms exporters for flogging weapons to Argentina only months before the invasion.
4. Peruvian peace plan? Belgrano? Ring any bells?
5. The Nationalities Act subsequently passed didn't even given the Falklanders full British citizenship.
6. I have every sympathy with the parents of soldiers who died in Iraq being angry with Tony Blair. But apparently (I haven't checked this) more British service personnel died in 1982 than died in Iraq. By contrast there would have been no chance of a bereaved father or widow standing against Thatcher in the election, the woman herself being asked to apologise to the relatives. Famously when Neil Kinnock responded to someone saying that Thatcher had guts with "pity other people had to leave theirs on Goose Green to prove it" somehow this was a gaffe.

It's been quoted so often it's become a cliche, but Anglophile author Borges's comment about two bald men fighting over a comb nails it.

Charlie: the SWP does not support British claims on the Falklands.

The fact that a crime was committed against the Diego-Garcians does not justify committing a crime against the Falklanders. Unless you happen to believe that a burglar has the right to steal from house B because he previously stole from house A. Or you are a Trot.

Likewise the nationality business is rather silly to anyone who is not a fan of St. Leon the Loser. The point is that the Falklands people have the right to be Falklands people, not British nor Argentinian.

Neither is it important that weapons were sold to Buenos Aires before the war. Unless you think that this somehow justifies the invasion. "We were mates with Argentina and sold them weapons, and, er..." What, exactly?

Peruvian offer to mediate - get it right for God's sake - did not alter the state of hostilities and neither did the sinking of the Belgrano, a ship of the line and a legitimate target. The discussions could have continued but neither side really wanted them - especially Galtieri who had a vested interest in keeping the thing going to stay in power. This is all pretty straightforward to anyone who is not a Trot.

The really annoying thing about all this is that thanks to Blair and the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan I have to make common cause and say nice things about knuckle-dragging, Leon-loving scum whom I basically despise. I shall be glad when the 4th Afghan War is over I really will.

My memory of the Falklands war is of the far left suddenly becoming Argentinian patriots, and being very careful to call the Falklands “Las Malvinas” as they were careful to call Northern Ireland “the six counties”. They did not seem concerned that handing over the Falklands to Argentina would give Galtieri and his disgusting fascist regime a boost. They wanted Thatcher and Britain to look foolish and defeated. One of the soft-left told me that what was said about Galtieri’s regime was just propaganda and surely it couldn’t be as bad as that. As for what the Falkland islanders might think about it, what did that matter?

I was only 9 at the time, but still remember how the entire primary school happily soaked up the jingoistic anti-Argy message of the general media. Domestically, 'kicking ass' in the Falklands buoyed up Maggie's premiership. If things had turned out differently, the Left in Britain might be in a better place than we are right now.

Argentina's claim over the Malvinas is a little stronger than mere geography. The first settlement of the previously uninhabited islands was a French one, which became Spanish, being administered from Buenos Aires. Britain started a settlement on a different bit of the islands, apparently unaware of the existing claim. After coming to blows, a treaty concluded the rights of both settlements without settling the sovereignty issue. Neither settlement has had an uninterrupted history.

'Imperialism' and 'self-determination' are concepts in conflict here, where the settled population are almost entirely in favour of continued imperial ties.

'Independence' might seem an attractive solution, but there will still have to be political relationships with Argentina and the UK. Can a minuscule new state be entirely sovereign and independent in such relationships.

The Realpolitik of the situation is that it is in Britain's best interests to retain sovereignty while there is any chance that the islands might be sitting on fossil-fuel resources that could seriously alter the energy-security map.

"The first settlement of the previously uninhabited islands was a French one, which became Spanish, being administered from Buenos Aires. "

You mean a colonial one?

So somehow Spanish colonialism was acceptable, but British wasn't ?

Seems a rather specious argument, bearing in mind that the Argentinian nation managed to kill off 99% of the indigenous populations and are themselves settlers.

So it is one group of settlers versus another group of settlers.

Hmm, not much anti-imperialism there!

Further to my earlier point about the SWP's position on the falklands war at the time:

Here's what the SWP’s leading theorist Duncan Hallas had to say at the time (Socialist Review, May 1982):

“Socialism and war

“We are not pacifists, we detest the Galtieri dictatorship, we dismiss the notion that the Argentinian seizure of the Falklands is progressive on anti-colonialist grounds. Nevertheless we believe that, in a war between Britain and Argentina, the defeat of British imperialism is the lesser evil. The main enemy is at home”.

Note also this from Hallas in the same article: “…because wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is established, the anti-war “in principle” position, if widely adopted by workers, guarantees the inevitability of future wars”.

Could we lose this Malvinas nonsense? When speaking English it is as silly as saying Cuidad de Mexico or Nuevo York. Talking about las islas Malvinas is correct when speaking Spanish and I do it, but not otherwise.

Likewise I am dubious about how the war helped the maggot. I canvassed for the local elections in 1982 and Labour won easily. The following year Michael Meatcher was returned for my constituency. You cannot blame the war for bum sucking scabbery.

Imperialism conducted by liberal, flawed democracies is a bad thing.

Supporting fascist states is also a bad thing.

Military action, in all but the very rarest situations (WW2, Time Warp UN intervention in Rwanda etc.) is a bad thing.

We on the anti-war left majority need to be sure to oppose Western mass murder of 3rd world people's (whether Argentinian, Afgan, Iraqi) without supporting 3rd world reactionary leaders (whether in the National Reorganization Process, the Taliban or the Ba'ath Party).

To those on the Pro-War left, can you hear yourselves when you snear "anti-Imperialism" as if such a concept has no place on the Left, as if it's a bad thing? Do you like how it sounds? Do you honestly not here the echoes of Imperialism when Western states undertake military adventures in far off countries, resulting in countless dead, and favorable economic and geopolitical results for the Western Ruling classes?

And us on the anti-war Left must come up with realistic, socialist alternatives to military action, that bolster the rights and freedoms of the Working classes while not cheer-leading repressive regimes (as in Iran), or in the Argentinian case, recognising the rights, though not the veto power, of the Falklanders to self-determination (which I suppose means British rule), while accepting that it's unfair for a wealthy Western nation to claim the natural resources of a far poorer developing state. (Although if we want those islands to stay above water then we should just leave the fossil fuels in the ground...)

This must be done while concurrently accepting that wars we opposed have taken place and organizing in support of democracy, feminism and socialism in Afganistan and Iraq, while rejecting arguments of moral relativism for fundamental human rights, and rejecting all realpolitik and never playing favorites between reactionary, minority streams of Islamism and Western Imperialism.

Considering that theorising is all the British Left does these days, you'd have thought we'd be good at it, but no: we're by and large organised into two camps shouting at each other, with no concern for the intricacies of reality.

I was 15 at the time. I remember reading about it first in a footnote in the Guardian when they seized the small island first, before they went onto the main one.
If I remember correctly the UK were in negotiations at the time to hand the islands back to Argentina and had stripped them of their UK citizenship in the first of Thatcher's nationality acts.
It would appear that the UK government at least acknowledged Argentina's sovereignty, upto the point that Argentina took what they should have been given.
You would expect the AWL to support the British government - they always do on foreign policy issues, in that sense I suppose you could say they are pure social chauvinists in the original sense of the phrase.
For what its worth I supported Argentina at the time on the grounds that if the Tories lost then Labour would win the next election.

Then is then, now is now.

So what do the thoughtful anti-imperialists think of events now?

1. Give Las Malvinas to the Argentinian govt, and evict the Falklander's (as with Diego Garcia)

2. Realise that these claims are merely capitalist greed? And say a pox on both houses?

3. Support the Falklander's desire to live on a rock in the middle of no where.

4. Develop the oil reserves and split the revenue in three ways.

5. Start looking up "self-determination" in the handy 'ABC manual of anti-imperialism', but don't commit yourself whilst a line is being worked out by your political betters?

6. Or admit it is all too confusing.

A bit of each of them? Which is it?

What do modern anti-imperialists really think?

People who were around at the time of the Falklands war should remember not only the protest marches during it but the state of the opinion polls before it. Without that convenient conflict it's more likely than not that the Tories would have lost the next election, and British history would have been substantially different. I don't suppose for a moment that Galtieri took a bung from Central Office, but if he had done he could scarcely have been more helpful.

Among the other "tired old sayings" on the left which were in vogue at the time was the one about the first responsibility of socialists being to confront their "own" capitalists.

Would you have supported the first world war on the basis of self determination for the Belgians Modernity?

I prefer the anti-imperialist tradition you so disparage.

Why is it 'common sense' to give (not return - the Falklands have never been Argentinian) islands full of people of who want to remain British to a nation they thoroughly despise after its imperialistic adventure against them in 1982?

That they are close to Argentina (300 miles isn't that close, though is it) is fatuous - in that case we'll have southern Ireland back.

This just sounds like more "if Britain/the West is doing it, it must be wrong"-ery. I do hope that sort of self-loathing enthuses a nice big segment of the Labour Party if Argentina rattles its sabre once more, it's just the sort of attitude the punters will like.

See list of countries by population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Falkland Islands population 3,000
UK troops in the Falkland Islands 2,000

66% of the Falkland Islands population are British Troops. Self Determination for the UK occupying army!!!

the Falklands have never been Argentinian
untrue.
That they are close to Argentina (300 miles isn't that close, though is it) is fatuous - in that case we'll have southern Ireland back.
Because Southern Ireland is closer to Britain than it is to,er, Southern Ireland?

mod - 1. Give Las Malvinas to the Argentinian govt, and evict the Falklander's (as with Diego Garcia)
They can stay, they can have their language respected, they just can't determine ownership. Not comparable.

Offer the Falklands as the Palestinian National Home.

"Would you have supported the first world war on the basis of self determination for the Belgians Modernity?" asks Father John "Couglin" G: Lenin (the real one, not that SWP wanker) answered this question very clearly at the time. You should check out his answer, it'll educate you (but of course, Father John, you don't think "pre Revolutionary Russia" has any relevance to contemparary Britain, do you?).

Like Lenin and the Bolshevics, I believe that the rights of nations and peoples to self-determination is an fundamnental socialist principle.

"Like Lenin and the Bolshevics, I believe that the rights of nations and peoples to self-determination"

which of course was NOT lenin's position, go back and read your books.

Nooman: you probably think that "Lenin" is the guy called Seymour who writes a blog that is even more ignorant (thjough possibly slightly less dishonest) than "Socialist Unity". The guy I'm on about (and you really should familiarise yourself with), wrote this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/x01.htm

You have to admit it's a bit funny, this is not a terribly difficult political problem, really, it isn't.

Yet it is quite hard to get people to actually tell you their views.

Skidmarx is perfectly clear, you could disagree with him but he has expressed himself well enough.

More's the pity that others cannot sum up their own views on the subject in a few lines.

In 1914 and again in 1945 Argentina proposed referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. On both occasions the Foreign Office asked its legal experts to look into the legal aspects and on both occasions they reported that in international law Britain did not have a leg to stand on.

They found that Britain’s C18 claim as against Spain had been abandoned in a treaty of the 1770s. Spain’s title was inherited by Argentina, under the generally accepted principle of transfer of Spain's rights to the successor states, and Argentina's sovereignty was therefore unchallengeable.

In the 1830s Argentina maintained a naval base and penal colony on the islands. The governor turned to piracy, attacking the passing ships of foreign nations. This annoyed the infant USA, which sent a naval force which seized the governor and his garrison and dumped them in Buenos Aires.

This left the islands ungarrisoned, and a British fleet took the opportunity to seize the islands for the crown. Argentina immediately protested and maintained its claim in annual protests to the powers of Europe and the world until the late 1840s; when they announced that they were suspending their regular protests for the time being, but stressed that this did not mean acceptance of Britain’s illegal action. Occasional protests resumed in the 1890s and have been consistently maintained since in all available international fora.

The legal experts opined that Britain’s uninterrupted occupation and settlement of the islands could not give rise to a legal title under the principle of ‘prescriptive right’ as this only applies in cases where there is no lawful claimant, and the occupation has never been challenged. It was, they said, a basic principle of international [and all other] law that a legal right could not follow from an illegal act.

So Britain on both occasions refused the Argentine request.

The principle of self-determination of nations cannot apply as the Falkland islanders are not a nation and have never claimed to be, and have never been other than a dependency of the UK. Nor can they claim ‘self-determination’ when their presence stems from an illegal act - any more than Israeli settlers on the West Bank.

There are and always have been more British citizens living in Argentina than the total population of the Falklands.

In fact a perfectly reasonable compromise was on the verge of being agreed in the 1970s, by which Argentine sovereignty would be recognised in principle, but the islands leased back to Britain, thus giving the islanders the right to continue to govern themselves under British rule, while satisfying Argentina’s honour. The scheme was dropped in a panic by the Tory government after a back-bench diehard Tory revolt.

Had this deal been followed through thousands of lives and billions of money would have been saved on both sides. Indeed a case of ‘bald men fighting over a comb’.

Stephen Marks,

So what exactly are you saying?

That the Falklander's have no right to self-determination ?

That they should be tossed out of their homes?

That the colonial project and settler state, Argentina somehow has rights over the people living 300 miles away from it?

Please do clarify your position.

John: the Leninist principle of "self determination" *must* apply to "peoples" as well as "antions", because:

1/ A lot of peoples only achieve nationhood once they've achived seld-determination. Therefore to deny self-determination to peoples who you (/) decree are not worthy of nationhood defaets tyhe object of the policy;

2/ Foe Mraxists, there *is* no clear-cut definition of what constitutes a nation (although Stalin had a go): and for good reason...basically if people *want* nationhood, they should have it, regardless of our thoughts on econiomic self-sufficiency, etc. In othger words, we're for a Passport to Pimlico...unless you think Luxemburg was right on the national question?

Sorry: a lot of fat-finger typos in the comment above. I hope they're obvious and do not obscure my meaning.

"antions" should be "nations", of course.

"Mraxists" is also bad...but I guess you all know what that is supposed to mean...

No I do not believe 2,000 people on the Falkklands have the 'right to self determination'. And its not worth a single drop of blood of a single British or Argentinian squaddie.

John G: "No I do not believe 2,000 people on the Falkklands have the 'right to self determination'. And its not worth a single drop of blood of a single British or Argentinian squaddie."

The true voice(like Simon Jenkins) of big-nation arrogant contemept for the rights of "little people".

If 2,000 people have no rights, John, how about 20,000... or 200,00? when -exactly- do a people become big enough to become worthy of having any rights, in your considered opinion, John?

Well, knackers to self determination for peoples. Self determination for people is more important. That means the principles of freedom of movement and association, both of which are contravened by the theory and practise of nationalism.

No patch of rock is worth slaying for, the Earth should be the common proprty of all. So, no war but the class war sums it up nicely. Join the common struggle for workers rights, irrespective of where national boundaries temporarilly lie.

Hope that's clear enough for Mod.

Talk of Falklanders being 'tossed out of their homes' keeps cropping up in this thread. Dave's post clearly states that the islanders should have 'a negotiated settlement giving them their choice of continued right of residence'.

Both the UK and Argentina have elected governments. Elected governments should be able to negotiate a deal where no-one gets 'tossed out of their home'. If the real issue is Oil and Gas why should the Argentines be demanding that any present islander leave the Falklands? What would it gain them?

It is a little ridiculous that people should keep basing their judgements on the Falklands on 'what I thought of the war'. If the Argentine military regime was still in power then that might be justified. The present situation is clearly different. There is no prospect of a new war - just a lot of hard negotiating over resources. Nation states do that all the time.

Agree 100% with Tim Dymond, the handing over of the Falklands with be a negiotiated settlement through the UN, the rights of the Islanders will be ratified in any agreement.

The fishing, oil and tourism issues will also require negotiation.

I really don't see the problem.

It is wonderful watching the world of the bovine Trot float by. The earth should be the common property of all. What can I say to that? My uncle should have tits and be my aunt. Let the UN protect the rights of the Falklanders. Just like the UN prevented the wars against Iraq and Yugoslavia? Brilliant idea.

Why not agree on the principles of opposition to aggression, that force should not be used in the first instance and that the rights of the locals should be respected?

Leave the Falklands alone - and Iraq and Afghanistan come to that.

Exile,

Any agreement will be ratified into international law. Now I know the British government has shown complete contempt for international law in the past but that shouldn't mean we throw the UN and international law into the dustbin.

Exile,

why should workers die for capitalist property rioghts? I don't own a square inch of Britain, in fact, it's misnamed, it's real name is 'tresspassers will be prosecuted' the same name as every otehr country (properly translated, of course).

Ooer, international law, excuse me whilst I have a cold shower. That would be the same body of international treaties et al which laid down that Belgium was to be permanently neutral? Yeah, there was a slight problem with that in August 1914 as I recall. And of course the Chimp did say that if the UN did not support the war againt Iraq then the UN would be irrelevant. Well, it didn't, and I would never accuse that smirking clown of telling lies.

As for Red Deathy's load of old wank, what can I say? The mindless verbiage of an infantile Trot; luckily his bred will never take power.

Exile,

I am no fucking Trot. Fine, though, keep supporting landlords' wars...

Exile,

You seem to think that any idea of progress should be given up because at some point in the past things went awry. I think this plays into the hands of the 'chimp'. If by chimp you mean Bush.

Does that mean that logically 'Red Deathy' thinks the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan did not happen? just a squabble between provinces?

Still, not much clarification.

I suspect that a tripartite agreement would probably be the best, but who is to say what the Argentinian demands would be?

Full ownership of the Falkland Islands?

Control of all and gas reserves?

the establishment of a base on the Falklands?

Any of these are possible given their previous statements.

So what follows is that the Falkland Islanders might reject the Argentinian government's demands, and then where do people stand?

Does anyone have the political candour to admit that they would evict Falkland Islanders, if they could ?

Should the Falkland Islanders be forcibly "repatriated" to Britain?

Just how far are people prepared to coerce the Falkland Islanders for the sake of "anti-imperialism"?

Mod,

The Argentinians are not barbarians. I know this is the standard view of foreigners among the pro imperialists but really the repatriation of the Islanders is not on their agenda. Any agreement signed into international law would ensure this wouldn't happen anyway.

The current residents will not have to move. (Except the occupation army)

This red herring is steering the argument in the wrong direction.

I support the principles that I outlined at the start of this thread. If people find them hard to understand then that is not my problem.

Given that I spent a big chunk of 1999 driving around Mexico bloody City setting up meetings for the Yugoslavian Ambassador to speak at, given also that I went into a similar blue arsed fly mode during the run-up to the war against Iraq, my support for the Falklands should not be hard to understand.

Jim Denham - A lot of peoples only achieve nationhood once they've achived seld-determination
No, they only achieve national independence once they've achieved self-determination.
Independence for the Falklands is another red herring, the Falklanders aren't raising it, it is only people like you who want to cover their collapse into backing imperialism with an abstract argument about democracy who do so.

If 2,000 people have no rights, John, how about 20,000... or 200,00?
2,000 people placed on a group of islands by an imperial power to justify their seizure of those islands from a nation with far greater physical proximity to them don't have the right to determine ownership of the islands. They do have rights, just not that one. Do millions of Argentinians not have the right to stop the practice of imperial powers of establishing colonies round the world wherever they have the military power to enforce their will?

modernity - if Galtieri had won, and expelled the Falklanders, that would have been wrong. Wouldn't stop it being right to return the islands. The rest of your last comment I don't get the point of.

Exile - I didn't find them hard to understand, just thought they would better fit support for the Argentinians than the British.

It is a bit surprising that Johnno somehow feels that certain areas of discussion are off-limits and some are not.

Equally, he's rather stupid to assume that most of us don't actually understand Latin America or can't speak the languages.

The latter point will fly over his head, but any Spanish speaker knows Argentinians speak with a rather distinctive accent, uncommon in Latin America and I would suspect it is largely due to the large number of Italian settlers, etc

But irrespective of his limited thinking and lazy assumption that Falkland islanders would not be replaced or kicked out, it is worthwhile asking these questions of ourselves and that was why I posed them.

Fortunately, skidmarx was clear in his views, whilst I might disagree with some of them at least he has the merit of engaging with the issue, unlike his ex-comrades in the SWP, who presumably are waiting to be told what to think.

I pose those questions because I wanted to see if people have actually taken the trouble to think independently, on their own, as to the sort of issues that the Falkland Islands bring up.

I don't think it's a terribly complex political problem, in terms of complex political problems, but as it is without a "line" many people can’t seem to marshal their thoughts on the issues, or that is how it seems.

Which I think is rather regrettable under the circumstances, as everyone here has access to the Internet, can read the background to the Falkland Islands and even read Spanish-language newspapers (via Google translate) if they have the wits.

So deciding their own views on this issue shouldn't be a monumental task, and in terms of deciding what you think is right and wrong then socialists shouldn't have much difficulty either.

Mod,

I have taken all the factors into consideration. Are you seriously telling me that a negotiated transfer of the Falklands to Argentina would not take into account the Islanders?

If that was the case I would not back the negoitiations.

My view is very clear- see my first comment at on this thread-couldn't be any clearer, the Falklands should be handed to Argentina, fishing and oil rights and all.

Omniscience is one of the problems with many who consider themselves to be on the Left.

The idea that they could predict what would happened in negotiations, years down the line, amongst parties that they know next to nothing about, is hardly credible.

Frankly, they have difficulty accurately predicting what will happen in the British political scene, let alone what would happen 8,000 miles away.

It is a common problem among politicos they can't imagine a different outcome from their own faulty reasoning. (Such thinking is probably partly to blame for many of the failures on the British Left, dodgy assumptions based on ill-conceived understandings of complex topics, of which they know little).

However, from a socialist point of view what is interesting is how many in these discussions accept, without a moment's thought, bourgeois property rights.

That somehow the Argentinian government intrinsically has the best property rights and claims to Las Malvinas, based on precisely what I'm not quite clear?

But it does seem slightly at odds with the internationalist view that "workers have no nation", that is leaving many other issues.

Most of the problems on the left can be put down to everyone being sent to sleep by modernity's tedious repetitive drivel.

"However, from a socialist point of view what is interesting is how many in these discussions accept, without a moment's thought, bourgeois property rights."

The EU is built on bourgeois property rights but you have no problem supporting it (And neither do I). Think why you have no problem with it and transfer that thought onto the Falklands issue.

Skidmarx - and others: imperial power is not imposed through small groups of sheep-farmers. Even if that was the original intention of populating those islands, imperialism has other ways of controlling the world.

'Self-determination' isn't just about independence (though usually it is). It's the principle that the people involved should have the ultimate say on whether they are ruled by Argentina or not. The islands' proximity is obviously a ludicrous criterion, or God help, say, the people of Uruguay. The issue of principle is the will of those people (and that there are only a few is a terrible argument. God help small groups of people, then).

This principle no more justifies British imperialist interests than any other democratic principle; and the agency socialists look to for its guarantee is the international (ie, including Argentinian) working class.

I don't see how 'the will of the people' is the magic principle, Clive. It doesn't take too much imagination to think of circumstances where 'the people' are created, eg the Six Counties, and then, as if by magic, their will follows.

Can an "anti-imperialist" (who presumably doesn't believe in nation states and bourgeois property rights, etc), please explain why the Argentinian government has the best claim to Las Malvinas?

I don't see how 'the will of the people' is the magic principle, Clive. It doesn't take too much imagination to think of circumstances where 'the people' are created, eg the Six Counties, and then, as if by magic, their will follows.

It's a pretty good general principle, though. And I think you have to do better than radically inexact analogies to show it doesn't apply. (Unless you want to say 'will of the people' or some similar principle is simply useless under all circumstances - in which case - democracy, anyone?)

Modernity,

"please explain why the Argentinian government has the best claim to Las Malvinas?"

again in my first comment I was clear - Geography.

imperial power is not imposed through small groups of sheep-farmers. Even if that was the original intention of populating those islands, imperialism has other ways of controlling the world.
Oh yes it is.They may not be the military's secret weapon, but they were the excuse.Imperialism has other ways of controlling the world,true, but one way its done is to place a group of metropolitan settlers amongst the provincials so that control can be exerted over the latter by pretending to support the democratic rights of the former. If you can't see that that's what happened here you are choosing not to see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKLIxTFNLIk

It's the principle that the people involved should have the ultimate say on whether they are ruled by Argentina or not.The principle that only the settlers get a say? That's a principle to delight imperialists everywhere. Maybe it's best to stick to the topic in hand, but have you thought of applying this one to the Western Sahara or Tibet?

The issue of principle is the will of those people (and that there are only a few is a terrible argument. God help small groups of people, then).
I'm struck by the similarity to the story of Lot in the Bible. If it was just one bloke on a rock should his will triumph?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsTBkrrl5Gg

This principle no more justifies British imperialist interests than any other democratic principle
It does the way you're using it.

the agency socialists look to for its guarantee is the international (ie, including Argentinian) working class.
But the one relied on in the real world was the British state and its navy.

I would have thought it would probably have been best for Argentinian workers to say that this was a desperate adventure by a military regime desperate to regain some popularity (Galtieri's not Thatcher's)and that the game wasn't worth the candle, but that's up to them.

Self determination for the 2,000 UK exiles temporarily domiciled in the Falklands Islands is a joke. Not least because they do not want it themselves. When have the Falkland Islanders ever wanted to establish a state independent of the UK?
That would be a pretty silly idea given that they are all employed by the British army.
Why not have self determination for the 200,000 occupying troops, plus 200,000 civilian lackeys in Iraq? That's nearly 5% of the population - you mean you are ignoring the democratic rights of the imperialist invading occupation forces - outrageous!

I seem to remember one grouping calling for a Socialist Confederation of Britain, Argentina and the Falklands. Given that they were also calling for a Socialist Confederation of Britain, Northern Ireland and Ireland that was going to require a lot of monopolies to be nationalised.

I would have thought it would probably have been best for Argentinian workers to say that this was a desperate adventure by a military regime desperate to regain some popularity (Galtieri's not Thatcher's)and that the game wasn't worth the candle, but that's up to them.

Of course it's up to them. I have no mechanism for forcing anyone to do anything. Ask my cat. But I am entitled to an opinion, and as an internationalist, I would have thought, have a duty to an opinion on such a matter.

And despite the ideological myths of much of the British left, there were considerable voices in Argentina who did have this opinion.

I was and would be now against the British state and its navy. I am in favour of building an international socialist movement, which should have democratic principles at its core.

I don't understand the references to Western Sahara or Tibet. Surely, the people there do want self-determination?

Why don't Jim and modernity join the army? They could then go and fight for the principles they hold dear. On the other hand I wouldn't really wish them on anyone. Malvinos Argentinos.

Sorry, I think you mean because of intermingling of people? For sure that makes things more complex. But it's hardly news as far as the principle of self-determination goes - it was the norm in Europe when the slogan was first discussed. The principle is the most consistent possible democracy.

But I am entitled to an opinion, and as an internationalist
Yes you are, but I don't see anything internationalist in your opinion.

And despite the ideological myths of much of the British left, there were considerable voices in Argentina who did have this opinion.
Whose myths and so what?

I was and would be now against the British state and its navy.
So who's going to maintain the "independence" of the Falklands?

I am in favour of building an international socialist movement, which should have democratic principles at its core.
Abstracted from the politics of the real world.

I don't understand the references to Western Sahara or Tibet. Surely, the people there do want self-determination?
The Moroccan and Chinese states have moved in settlers in such numbers that an abstract principle of self-determination would legitimise the dispossession of the indiginous people.
I think you mean because of intermingling of people?
It doesn't just happen by accident, and aren't just cases of neighbours just not getting along.
The principle is the most consistent possible democracy.
One of the reasons for imperialism placing seetlers is to be able to give a democratic cover to their domination.Katanga in the Congo and Santa Cruz in Bolivia could be added of examples where a majority in one part is lauded by the ideologues of imperialism because it aids the exploitation of a greater majority. If you want to be a consistent democrat you'll have to get to grips with that.

Obviously no point at going at this ad nauseam, so I'll make this my last.

The Moroccan and Chinese states have moved in settlers in such numbers that an abstract principle of self-determination would legitimise the dispossession of the indiginous people.

But the Falklanders haven't displaced indigenous people. I agree that where that is so it can be deliberate.

who's going to maintain the "independence" of the Falklands?

The Argentinian workers' movement - and you appear to agree this should be their position. How can this be internationalist if an Argentnian socialist thinks it, but not if I do? What sort of socialist internationalism is it which subordinates things of this nature to 'the politics of the real world.?

So now were told that leaving aside the issues of nationstates, bourgeois property rights, etc the Argentinian governments claim to the Falkland Islands is a geographical imperative?

That truly is a strange position for socialists to hold for any number of reasons, but is it a universal reason?

Surely anyone, any socialist, should want a universal principle to be applied here, not one just plucked out of the air, not a subjective one, made up for occassion

If we become the prisoner of geography, then presumably Norway would have a claim to the Shetland Islands as Bergen is closer than Edinburgh is.

The Shetland Islands are closer, some 265 miles to Norway, than the Falkland Islands are to Buenos Aires, but few people would argue that Norwegians should lay claim to the Shetland Islands, certainly fewer socialists.

We could scamper around the globe & find equally strange anomalies.

The Canary Islands are but one example and many Brits will have participated in the continual colonial process there by taking their summer holidays in the region.

Yet the Canary Islands is only some 100 kilometres from Africa and Morocco, the nearest nation state, has no claim to them.

The same could be said of many other islands scattered around the globe, etc etc

So the geography argument is not universal and somewhat contentious, when you think about it.

The Shetland Islands are closer, some 265 miles to Norway, than the Falkland Islands are to Buenos Aires, but few people would argue that Norwegians should lay claim to the Shetland Islands, certainly fewer socialists.

Mod, isn't there a slight case, my memory is shonky here, that says the transfer of Shetlands to Scotland from norway wasn't meant to be permenant? ISTR reading something like that, so possibly Norway has the better legal claim.

Actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shetland#Pawned_to_Scotland

Who needs a memory when we have Wikipedia. Fight Imperialism. Fight Racism. Return the Shetlands to Norway...

Red Deathy,

You missed the under lying point.

Modernity,

You really are floundering.

Geography not an issue! Are you serious! Why do you think the Argentineans are not laying claim to the Isle of Wight!

You are correct that historic issues come into play but I was answering your general question, which was:

“please explain why the Argentinian government has the best claim to Las Malvinas?"

Again the answer is Geography, and you can’t get more objective than that!

The reason geography matters is a practical as well as a psychological one, it would be extremely expensive for Argentinean fishing boats to travel the long distance to the Isle of White every time they needed to make a catch. A nation that doesn’t control the useful economic territory around it own area is at a disadvantage, a nation which controls all its own territory and those of other nations is at an advantage. It can use this advantage to mitigate against risk, it can use this power to bribe and bully. Just like the rich man has more power over the poor man, so it is for nations. Wealth distribution among nations is a progressive act.

modernity - The Shetland Islands are closer, some 265 miles to Norway, than the Falkland Islands are to Buenos Aires,
And they're a lot closer to Scotland than the Falklands are to the UK.

Clive - But the Falklanders haven't displaced indigenous people.
They were settled there so that an imperial power from another hemisphere could use the place as a watchtower to maintain its domination of the world's seas. The colony probably wouldn't survive if not for the support from London. There are large parts of any country where there is no actual dwelling. Why should the seizure of a part of Argentina be justified on this basis?
I agree that where that is so it can be deliberate.
And that leads to what conclusion? That a consistent application of democratic principles involves taking into account the operation of imperialism?

The Argentinian workers' movement - and you appear to agree this should be their position.
No it isn't. The slogan of independence like the call for self-determination is a cover for maintaining the imperialist status quo, which is going to be done by the British navy or not at all. I said that Argentine workers might rightly reach the conclusion that the Malvinas aren't worth fighting for, not that they should support the position of the imperialists in the way you seem to.

How can this be internationalist if an Argentnian socialist thinks it, but not if I do?
1. Because that's not what I said.
2. Because seeing your own ruling class as the enemy has been a socialist position for a long time, at least since the weasel excuses the parties of the Second International had for supporting the First World War, each finding some "democratic" reason for their own country's militarism. It is far easier to convince workers from around the world that you believe in the class struggle's primacy everywhere if you don't fall in behind your own ruling class when the going gets tough.
What sort of socialist internationalism is it which subordinates things of this nature to 'the politics of the real world.?
The sort of socialist internationalism that doesn't use some abstract principle to wish imperialism out of existence. The sort of socialist internationalism that doesn't pretend that there is some independent position that absolves you from opposing your own country's military adventures.

Mod,

Irony is a type of metally, yeah?

Again it would be helpful if people tried to understand the argument that they are putting forward.

If you are putting forward geography as a universal imperative then you would have to tip out hundreds of thousands of people from islands which are close to other nation states.

I gave an example above the Canaries, close to Morocco, but some 1000 miles from Madrid.

If, on the other hand, you're making the subjective argument that in this particular case between Argentina and the Falkland Islands that geography counts and in all other examples it doesn't, then you are not applying universal principles but making it up as you go along.

I’ll give you one latter example, and I do hope that you Brits will read your history more.

Should we accept a 300 mile distance as a potential for a universal claim, combined with some historical connection to that entity, then the British would be entitled to reclaim Bordeaux, or at least try.

Readers with a non "anti-imperialist grasp" of history will remember how chunks of modern day France were actually owned by the British, or more correctly the then English state run by King John, etc

In fact, if you were to employ that tendentious reasoning you could argue that Britain/England/the English state has had a longer claim on the land around Bordeaux (since before the 13th century) than the Argentinians have had of the Falkland Islands. But that is all nonsense, when you think about it.

So it gets a bit messy when you employ that line of reasoning, if you are trouble to have a degree of consistency and thought behind your arguments.

If, however, you pluck an argument from your arse to suit the occasion then I suppose the geography argument is as good as any other, and equally as bad.

Modernity,

You are so dim witted. (see the Bordeaux analogy folks)

A country that manages to keep overseas territories is usually an indication that it is a powerful nation, so these LONG DISTANCE colonies are a suitable OBJECTIVE test for a nation’s wealth and power. While ever you have these anomalies you won’t get the international democratic socialism Clive dreams of, those that benefit from this arrangement or perceive that they benefit won’t want it. We could move this debate onto the controversial area of labour aristocracy.

If you mean by making it up as we go along we judge these on a case by case basis I would say yes. In the case of the Falklands, considering the respective distances from Britain and Argentina, Geography plays a critical part of the evaluation.

I said I wouldn't say more, but I have to just say this: I did and would again oppose my own ruling class's military adventures. And the paper I sold at the time, Socialist Organiser, had on its front page throughout the war 'The main enemy is at home'.

Rather typically "anti-imperialists" often become abusive when the idiocy of their own reasoning is demonstrated.

For the third time, the Canary Islands is even closer to Morocco than it is to Madrid , but no one has suggested they be returned or given to Morocco by virtue of some spurious geographical calculation.

According to various web estimation Buenos Aires is approximately 1200 miles from the Falkland Islands. see http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/cities_distance_airpt2.cgi?city3=-1456711,B&city4=280509,F

But whatever this case by case position is and how arguments are plucked from arses to suit the occasion, it seems extraordinary that the individuals stuck on that rock aren't brought into the picture.

Extraordinary, if you're a socialist, because you want a connection with people, real people even if you disagree with their views and even if you might find them politically repugnant, because they are people trying to live their lives as best they can, on a rock in the middle of nowhere.

Whereas if you're a faux "anti-imperialist" then these people are largely unimportant and the political imperatives of your own ideology take over.

I suppose that is the difference between socialists and fake "anti-imperialists", one has a connection to people and the other views them as abstracts, more in tune with a reverse Henry Kissinger view of the world.

It is small wonder that modern "anti-imperialists" have such a difficulty convincing people of their paper thin arguments and love of abstracts, whereas ordinary people are concerned with what really happens in the real world and who gets shafted by whom, and not the political chess so beloved of "anti-imperialists".

"it seems extraordinary that the individuals stuck on that rock aren't brought into the picture."

I have brought them into the picture, I said previously in response to you that if any negotiated transfer of the Falklands didn't provide guarantees of the Islanders rights I would be against it!

I am NOT advocating a population transfer. I actually take your position here and against those who show them total disregard.

Try reading more closely next time.

So, Mod, self determination for Turkish Cypriots?

Red Deathy,

You'll notice I never commented much on self-determination, or maybe you didn't, maybe you didn't even read anything I have written, who knows?

My own view, is that if someone is so inclined to live in the middle of nowhere, on a rock, that wasn't owned by anyone (in any significant way) and that fancies the company of seagulls and the wind, then I'd let them.

I'd forget about all the bourgeois property rights.

I'd avoid using spurious arguments on geography.

And I certainly wouldn't forget the fact that Argentina is a SETTLER state, who managed to kill off most of the indigenous peoples, so their claim to other lands is questionable from the outset.

I have no love of British imperialism in any shape or form, but the Falklands is more of a political football than anything else.

We are told with absolute certainty that the islanders' wishes would be taken into account, I am afraid history doesn't suggest that would be the case.

Nation states have a habit of stitching up agreements and the last people who are taken account of, are the people involved.

Personally, I'd let the Turkish Cypriots live in peace with the Greek Cypriots and no intervention from any external nations, I hope that answers your flippant question.

I do look forward to the Socialist Standards' in-depth analysis of the Falkland Islands and Argentina's claim?

Mod,

You'll notice I never said you commented much on self-determination, or maybe you didn't, maybe you didn't even read anything I have written, who knows?

Oddly modernity most people wouldn't want a war over the Falklands, Just as they didn't want a war with Iraq and certainly don't want a war with Iran, and increasingly don't want to be in Afghanistan. Anti-imperialism is just common sense. Which presumably accounts for the existence of a host of people with handles like 'modernity' etc, who have been dreadfully upset about this since about 2003 blaming what they call 'the left'.

I didn't think my opinion of Modernity could get any lower but having read these exchanges he has managed it.

Red Deathy,

True enough,

I should know better than exchange comments with an SPGBer, it is like trying to discuss the Marxist view of history with a Hare Krishna devotee :)

Johnny-Boy 'G': "Anti-imperialism is just common sense."

Yeah: like immigration controls, deporting 'illegals', capital punishment and torture. Let's keep ourselves to ourselves, fuck the foreigners and keep the UK safe. I notice that the BNP are now offering the Islamists a deal: leave us alone and we'll get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Ladin, the STWC and you could all sign up to that, eh, John?

Yeah, and don't get me started about those racists at the StWC:

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/walk-away/

"Let's keep ourselves to ourselves,"

No lets bomb bomb bomb!

"Yeah: like immigration controls"

You seem to be saying that invading countries and commiting mass murder is some form of anti racism.

That view is quite unique, even among the most rabid elements on the right.

Clive - And the paper I sold at the time, Socialist Organiser, had on its front page throughout the war 'The main enemy is at home'.
Good, though perhaps 'The real enemy is at home' would have been better. Still, it doesn't seem to match the arguments you've been putting here. Maybe a lesson not to judge a book by its cover. Are the Socialist Organiser's of the time available online, so that we might see what the content of the articles was, and see if collar and cuffs match?