Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should the UK give the Falklands to Argentina?

POST REPLY

Should the UK give Argentina the Falklands.

Yes, the UK should give the Falklands to Argentina
16
47%
No, the UK shoouldn't give the Falklands to Argentinia
8
24%
Other
10
29%
 
Total votes : 34
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 02 Apr 2012, 18:32
My opinion is that we should not because the people on the islands what to be British and are fine with British rule.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 18:35
No.
Better let Argentina take them, if they dare...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 02 Apr 2012, 18:47
It's a Potemkin village, and nobody who lives there really wants to stop living off the vast sums of British government money they are practically given.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 19:47
Anything that destroys British power is a good thing. So yes.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 02 Apr 2012, 20:26
Both claims are imperialist in nature, it doesn't matter either way. Oh, and the British actually bothered to colonise the islands (which had no native populace to speak of) on a permanent basis.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 20:29
Quote:
Anything that destroys British power is a good thing. So yes.

Yes, I bet a bunch of islands in the middle of nowhere with 5000 people and ten times as much sheep is somehow crucial to the "British power".
England colonized the islands, Argentinian fascist junta tried to invade them and got its ass kicked. End of the story.
The Falklands will stay British as long as Britain has the means to defend them. If only out of spite.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 68
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Sep 2011, 20:03
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 02 Apr 2012, 20:34
Maybe the sheep should revolt and govern the islands for themselves.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 20:42
Small imperialism is better than big imperialism. Our goal is to support rivalries in the international bourgeoisie not support the big ones.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 02 Apr 2012, 20:49
When such rivalries invariably result in needless civilian deaths. We're back to the 2nd international collapsing again.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 20:49
WTF?
We don't side with imperialism, "big" or "small".
We said NO to siding with "small" (German) imperialism in the WW1 against the "big" imperialism of England and France. Communists are against imperial war and ANY siding with imperialism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 21:17
Imperialists fighting is when they're weakest. Every advancement of socialism has occurred as a result of imperialist conflict. We [communists] spread better in the second one because we pretty much won it. It was that prestige of defeating a Big Imperialist (Nazi Germany wasn't in any way a small Imperialist, Iran is a small imperialist), in a war THEY started, that provided so much fetile land for Soviet Socialism.

To head you off before you [continue to] fly off the handle I'm not saying we should instigate some grand imperial war but distract them with their enemy comrades and maybe even they'll be stupid enough to think we're on their side. Fuсk England, they don't even need the Falklands and the damage to their image is worth supporting the Argentine bourgeoisie's demands.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 21:25
Quote:
Imperialists fighting is when they're weakest.

Yes, that's why you don't support either side.

Quote:
Every advancement of socialism has occurred as a result of imperialist conflict.

No, but as a result of revolutionary struggle in times of imperialist conflict. That's something completely different.

Quote:
To head you off before you [continue to] fly off the handle I'm not saying we should instigate some grand imperial war but distract them with their enemy comrades and maybe even they'll be stupid enough to think we're on their side. Fuсk England, they don't even need the Falklands and the damage to their image is worth supporting the Argentine bourgeoisie's demands.

Petty-bourgeois nationalist bitching about some worthless islands is not something communists should engage in. We don't take sides in this imperialist conflict.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 21:52
Loz wrote:
Yes, that's why you don't support either side.

That's far-left idealism. We don't exist outside the world and neither can our argument.

Loz wrote:
No, but as a result of revolutionary struggle in times of imperialist conflict. That's something completely different.

No it's just one part. A revolution is inertia versus tradition. Tradition aims to break inertia like a sea wall. Imperialist conflict deeply undermines tradition which allows waves of revolutionary inertia to break through them completely. Dialectics bro.

Loz wrote:
Petty-bourgeois nationalist bitching about some worthless islands is not something communists should engage in. We don't take sides in this imperialist conflict.

The Argentinians Haute bourgeoisie support this even. That's a real division not just frustrated petty-bourgeois.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:04
Quote:
That's far-left idealism. We don't exist outside the world and neither can our argument.

What? Have you read Lenin on the imperialist Great War?

"During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... jul/26.htm

Quote:
Imperialist conflict deeply undermines tradition which allows waves of revolutionary inertia to break through them completely.

Yes, i'm sure that the imperialist conflict in the 1910s greatly undermined the traditional bourgeois order in France or Germany...see the Union Sacree.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:07
Silly loz it requires inertia to demolish tradition. All the imperialist conflict in the world won't change anything until inertia is generated in resistance to it. The dialectic only works when both forces are present.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:09
I don't want to talk about "inertia", i want you to elaborate your claims taking the relevant writings of Lenin i linked to into consideration.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:14
Dagoth Ur wrote:
That's far-left idealism. We don't exist outside the world and neither can our argument.


This is such an important concept to me. I can't emphasize enough my frustration with those radical leftists who constantly stand off to the side of a conflict and say 'they're both bad', even if the government of one side has some progressive or socialist traditions. By this logic the USSR shouldn't have supported Assad, Gaddafi, the Sandinista, Nasser or even Castro in his earliest days.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:18
I think it's rooted in the idea of ideological and political purity. Or at least that was the trap I fell in back when I used to say stuff like loz is saying now.

@loz: You don't want to talk about the important thing? Our most important concern and you would rather have me point out that there is no contradiction in that quote and what I've said? Okay.

Supporting Argentina's desire to have the Falklands doesn't contradict being happy to see either side loose, and happier to see the bigger one fall. Playing off of bourgeoisie divisions is politics.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:20
Lenin clearly said that we cannot and must not support either side in an inter-imperialist war.

Quote:
Supporting Argentina's desire to have the Falklands doesn't contradict being happy to see either side loose, and happier to see the bigger one fall. Playing off of bourgeoisie divisions is politics.

No,that's objectively siding with Argentine irredentism and bourgeois nationalism.
And you can't play realpolitik if you don't have the toys.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:50
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Silly loz it requires inertia to demolish tradition.


[Grammar Nazi]
Isn't inertia another word for status quo? I mean, stuff remaining moving or motionless accordin' to their prior state, unless a force intervenes over it?

I'm 99% sure you wanted to say momentum.

[/Grammar Nazi]
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.