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
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2012, 14:26
Quote:
It's not self-determination, because they're illegal settlers. That's why it's subject of discussion on the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization.

Somebody better give a ring up to the various tribes of North America and let them know about this precedence.
The people have been living on the Falklands long enough, it's theirs, Argies need to let this go.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 14:36
Comrade_Canuck wrote:
Somebody better give a ring up to the various tribes of North America and let them know about this precedence.
The people have been living on the Falklands long enough, it's theirs, Argies need to let this go.


No, it's not theirs. Under the current international system, occupation does not equal ownership. We have all the legal rights to those islands, and we don't want a NATO base there.

I understand there might be some "commonwealth" solidarity... but siding with the Empire...


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2012, 14:43
Quote:
I understand there might be some "commonwealth" solidarity... but siding with the Empire...

I'm actually in favour of NEITHER the British or the Argentinians getting the territory for the sole purpose of shutting both sides up and allowing the people living on the island to do as they wish as it's their home. They dont deserve to be kicked out by Argies who want to stick it to the British, they dont deserve to have the crown looming over them. I suppose we should just boot all the Israeli Jews back to Europe and America after this too, hmm?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 15:29
Perhaps I didn't say it enough times... we don't want to kick anybody out. Is that so hard to understand? We don't need to take the population out in order to prove our sovereignty, we're not british.

Besides, the islanders don't want to be independent. They don't even elect their government, they only vote for a local council. They're subjects of the crown, and proud to be that. There is nothing that makes them any different from any other british subject.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2012, 18:51
I just don't understand why you keep saying "we" all the time. You're not the Argentinian state. As a communist, you should understand that the Argentinian state is your enemy. Yet you want to extend the dominion of your enemy to the Falkland Islands as if that would help anybody. I'm all for the Falkland Islands being removed from Britain, but I don't see how subjugating them to the Argentinian bourgeoisie would help anybody. The only reason to give a shit seems to be some abstract, and nonsensical, notions of historical justice or stuff like that.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2012, 18:55
Quote:
It will certainly result in benefits for our peers. The fishing rights and oil extraction rights will certainly benefit those living in Tierra del Fuego, the province where Malvinas belong. And through our national oil company, the benefit of new stocks of oil reach all of the population.


Lol really? There are all sorts of nationalised companies in Britain ranging from banks to railways. Yet I haven't noticed any material benefit for me. As far as I am aware the Argentinian oil company is 50% publicly owned. Does this mean you get a cheque through the door for your share of half the oil sold each month? Will Argentinian fisherman start handing out free fish to the people of Argentina? Is everyone in Argentina bereft of fish and oil - a problem that will only be solved once they seize control of the Falklands/Malvinas? Any benefits of reclaiming the Islands will be minor. However, the Argentinian government knows this; they only put emphasis on the sovereignty issue for populist reasons.

Quote:
They haven't stole from me, but from my community, my nation.


Which is an invention by the bourgeoisie designed to act as a stratifying agent and a legitimising factor for bourgeois rule in a class society. You seem to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

Quote:
It's just one of the many attempts of the british empire to promote its influence on this part of the world. They tried taking over Buenos Aires twice, and after failing, they went for the islands.


You seem to be placing an irrational British obsession over Argentina. That really isn't the case. As I said, there isn't much there in the Falklands. Oil is only a recent thing (and is proving to be elusive). Other than that there are far more prosperous parts of the world for the bourgeoisie to have interests. The British bourgeoisie merely hang on to it to support their own national myth for populist reasons. This is just one bourgeois government versus another. We should not be taking sides.

Quote:
And you're soooooo progressive, you're siding with the Empire. Good for ya.


Actually, I said "Other - I just don't care what happens to them." When proletarians in either country get distrated by this issue it is for a reason: to shore up popular support for the respective bourgeois governments who are using nationalism as a tool. We would be much better off ignoring this minor issue and focusing on undermining capitalism and bourgeois rule itself within our respective countries.


Here is the litmus question for you:

Supposing Britain (including the Falklands/Malvinas Islands) underwent a proletarian revolution, would you still demand the return of the islands to capitalist Argentina?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 19:48
Mabool wrote:
I just don't understand why you keep saying "we" all the time. You're not the Argentinian state. As a communist, you should understand that the Argentinian state is your enemy. Yet you want to extend the dominion of your enemy to the Falkland Islands as if that would help anybody. I'm all for the Falkland Islands being removed from Britain, but I don't see how subjugating them to the Argentinian bourgeoisie would help anybody. The only reason to give a shit seems to be some abstract, and nonsensical, notions of historical justice or stuff like that.

I keep saying "we" because I am part of the Argentinian State and I'm part of this government, which does work for the argentinian people. I'm sorry if you can't relate to that.

gRed Britain wrote:
Lol really? There are all sorts of nationalised companies in Britain ranging from banks to railways. Yet I haven't noticed any material benefit for me. As far as I am aware the Argentinian oil company is 50% publicly owned. Does this mean you get a cheque through the door for your share of half the oil sold each month? Will Argentinian fisherman start handing out free fish to the people of Argentina? Is everyone in Argentina bereft of fish and oil - a problem that will only be solved once they seize control of the Falklands/Malvinas? Any benefits of reclaiming the Islands will be minor. However, the Argentinian government knows this; they only put emphasis on the sovereignty issue for populist reasons.

Of course I don't get a cheque, but I do get cheaper oil (it has increased production and lowered the price in only a month). The fish and oil rights function as taxes, which help the State provide better services (public health, education, security) to all the inhabitants. Seems like you've forgotten what a welfare state is about.

gRed Britain wrote:
You seem to be placing an irrational British obsession over Argentina. That really isn't the case. As I said, there isn't much there in the Falklands. Oil is only a recent thing (and is proving to be elusive). Other than that there are far more prosperous parts of the world for the bourgeoisie to have interests. The British bourgeoisie merely hang on to it to support their own national myth for populist reasons. This is just one bourgeois government versus another. We should not be taking sides.

If they weren't important enough for the british, there wouldn't be a military base with half as many soldiers as inhabitants in the islands. Well, if you think you shouldn't take sides - good for you. I, on the other hand, am part of the affected community. I cannot play neutrality. Ask the cubans if they should take sides regarding Guantanamo, or the Palestinians regarding the jewish settlers.

gRed Britain wrote:
Actually, I said "Other - I just don't care what happens to them." When proletarians in either country get distrated by this issue it is for a reason: to shore up popular support for the respective bourgeois governments who are using nationalism as a tool. We would be much better off ignoring this minor issue and focusing on undermining capitalism and bourgeois rule itself within our respective countries.

You seem to think that's the only thing we care about. It's just one of the many issues our government and our people are fighting for.

gRed Britain wrote:
Supposing Britain (including the Falklands/Malvinas Islands) underwent a proletarian revolution, would you still demand the return of the islands to capitalist Argentina?

Interesting question. I guess if they become independent and in good will to cooperate with Argentina and allow argentinian immigrants, I might support it. But that's as remote as asking if I'll support a communist colony on Mars.


You keep using the word "populist". I don't think it means what you think it means.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2012, 19:57
Quote:
I keep saying "we" because I am part of the Argentinian State and I'm part of this government, which does work for the argentinian people

Jesus Christ.
You are a part of the state and the government? Communists are "a part of the state" now?
Bourgeois state is the enemy no. 1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 20:00
Of course. There are many in office, and supporting the government alliance. That's what happens when you get in real politics in a democratic country.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2012, 20:01
That's what you get when you're a class-alliance reformist, yes.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 20:08
Ok... keep working for the revolution... at home.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2012, 20:14
It's better to sit on your ass in your room than to go on the streets promoting and working for bourgeois nationalism, reformism and "class-reconciliation. I prefer doing nothing to doing anti-Marxist propaganda.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 20:22
What we do has nothing to do with anti-marxist propaganda. But go ahead, doing nothing is always a good option... that's really revolutionary


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2012, 21:18
Quote:
I keep saying "we" because I am part of the Argentinian State and I'm part of this government, which does work for the argentinian people. I'm sorry if you can't relate to that.


I would have thought the only Argentinian State which truly works for the Argentinian people would be a proletarian state. Surely the current Argentinian government is designed to work for the Argentinian bourgeoisie above all else?

Quote:
Of course I don't get a cheque, but I do get cheaper oil (it has increased production and lowered the price in only a month). The fish and oil rights function as taxes, which help the State provide better services (public health, education, security) to all the inhabitants. Seems like you've forgotten what a welfare state is about.


Except oil in the Islands still hasn't been discovered yet. Anyway, as I said, such benefits from the Islands will not be significant to each proletarian.

Quote:
If they weren't important enough for the british, there wouldn't be a military base with half as many soldiers as inhabitants in the islands.


As I said, this is just part of perpetuating the British national myth.

Quote:
Well, if you think you shouldn't take sides - good for you. I, on the other hand, am part of the affected community. I cannot play neutrality.


OMG! Yes you can! This was why Lenin got so pissed off with the so-called socialists in various Parliaments before WW1: they took sides, sided with "their" respective bourgeoisies and voted for an imperialist war! As a communist you are not supposed to take the side of the Argentinian bourgeoisie in its conflicts with bourgeoisie of other nations!

Quote:
Ask the cubans if they should take sides regarding Guantanamo, or the Palestinians regarding the jewish settlers.


They all have individual opinions on the subjects; they are not one homogenous bloc.

Quote:
You seem to think that's the only thing we care about. It's just one of the many issues our government and our people are fighting for.


I said it was a minor issue. There surely are far more pressing issues facing the people of Argentina (like Argentine capitalism maybe?)

Quote:
Interesting question. I guess if they become independent and in good will to cooperate with Argentina and allow argentinian immigrants, I might support it. But that's as remote as asking if I'll support a communist colony on Mars.


No, the correct answer is you should support the proletarians. If you were to work towards transferring the Islands from a socialist Britain to a capitalist Argentina you would only serve to undermine a socialist state in favour of a capitalist one. Not very Marxist is it? It doesn't matter about who is allowed to go there. Once Argentina becomes socialist as well, then it can become a place where both sets of people can come and go as they like.

Quote:
You keep using the word "populist". I don't think it means what you think it means.


Quote:
Generally, a common theme compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of various political or social movements (a form of mobilization that is essentially devoid of theory). It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes". It can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the "people" as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship: "a folksy appeal to the 'average guy' or some allegedly general will."


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


This is what the national myth lives on. It convinces the proletarians that bourgeois interests are their interests too. Thus when the US government says it is in their national interest to bomb various countries in the Middle East, they are trying to imply that this action is for the good of the US proletariat. Because the US proletariat has been subjected to extensive propaganda from birth to believe in the nation myth, this sentiment often has a very powerful effect in shaping public opinion. It is thus populist because it appeals to the mass of people despite the fact that in reality it is of little material benefit to them.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 21:42
gRed Britain wrote:
I would have thought the only Argentinian State which truly works for the Argentinian people would be a proletarian state. Surely the current Argentinian government is designed to work for the Argentinian bourgeoisie above all else?

And this is where you go wrong. This government benefits the workers above all. Peronism is a transition, where the bourgeosie is tolerated but the government leans towards the workers. Our current constitution is the leftover of a neo-liberal age, that's why we're working on changing it again soon.

Quote:
Except oil in the Islands still hasn't been discovered yet. Anyway, as I said, such benefits from the Islands will not be significant to each proletarian.

But indeed it has been discovered. It is of low grade, though. And still, it'll benefit a lot of our proletarians, if not all.

Quote:
As I said, this is just part of perpetuating the British national myth.

There is a british nation, weather you like it or not.

Quote:
OMG! Yes you can! This was why Lenin got so pissed off with the so-called socialists in various Parliaments before WW1: they took sides, sided with "their" respective bourgeoisies and voted for an imperialist war! As a communist you are not supposed to take the side of the Argentinian bourgeoisie in its conflicts with bourgeoisie of other nations!

Yeah, because I wouldn't care to have a NATO base on my country. But I do!! The conflict here was started and continued by the brititsh, not the argentinian government.

Quote:
They all have individual opinions on the subjects; they are not one homogenous bloc.

Now that's a stupid reply. The same happens here. Yet, the majority, the people, have a strong stance against foreign occupation.


Quote:
I said it was a minor issue. There surely are far more pressing issues facing the people of Argentina (like Argentine capitalism maybe?)

Exactly, that doesn't mean it isn't a fight worth fighting for.

Quote:
No, the correct answer is you should support the proletarians. If you were to work towards transferring the Islands from a socialist Britain to a capitalist Argentina you would only serve to undermine a socialist state in favour of a capitalist one. Not very Marxist is it? It doesn't matter about who is allowed to go there. Once Argentina becomes socialist as well, then it can become a place where both sets of people can come and go as they like.

Sorry, I forgot you've got all the correct answers.



Quote:
This is what the national myth lives on. It convinces the proletarians that bourgeois interests are their interests too. Thus when the US government says it is in their national interest to bomb various countries in the Middle East, they are trying to imply that this action is for the good of the US proletariat. Because the US proletariat has been subjected to extensive propaganda from birth to believe in the nation myth, this sentiment often has a very powerful effect in shaping public opinion. It is thus populist because it appeals to the mass of people despite the fact that in reality it is of little material benefit to them.

So, Marxists don't 'compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes'? Populism is the people leading the government. Europeans seem to have a hard time with that concept.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2012, 21:52
Quote:
Peronism is a transition, where the bourgeosie is tolerated but the government leans towards the workers.

That's nonsense. Bourgeois governments can be more or less "social" but that doesn't change anything about them being bourgeois governments of bourgeois states.

Quote:
So, Marxists don't 'compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes'?

No, that's bourgeois liberalism.
Marxism is not about the "people", it's about class struggle first and foremost. It's about the dictatorship of the proletariat, not some class-alliances.
When communists started talking about "the state of the whole people" you could tell that something had gone wrong.
"The people" is actually virulently anti-Marxist rhetorics.

Populism is demagoguery that serves to obfuscate class struggle.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 14 Jun 2012, 21:59
Argentina is not a socialist country, but it is slowly moving in a progressive direction, and the radical Left is apparently participating in the government. On the other side, you have the UK, which continues to act as the world's second imperialist power, which is one of the leading (if not the leading) global centers of finance capital, and whose government appears to be moving in the opposite direction domestically. gRed, your hypothetical about the First World War is really out of place, given the imbalance of power between the two countries, Argentina being a developing country long exposed to the whims of European and American imperialism and Britain being among the countries to dish it out. The islands are a symbol of faded British power and pride, and constitute a tremendous expense to garrison, sitting thousands of miles from Britain while depriving Argentina of an area contiguous to its territorial waters. Incidentally, they also serve as a potential forward deployment base that could prove helpful in the event that a South American country might need to be bombed into democracy.
"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
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2012, 23:00
Quote:
And this is where you go wrong. This government benefits the workers above all. Peronism is a transition, where the bourgeosie is tolerated but the government leans towards the workers. Our current constitution is the leftover of a neo-liberal age, that's why we're working on changing it again soon.


And just how socialist is it prepared to go? I am skeptical of reformists like this because eventually the bourgeoisie say enough is enough and dig their heels in. Tony Blair's government claimed to be left-of-centre, working for the common man (the Labour Party) and which practised the 'Third Way'. This party was (and still is) part of the Socialist International. Didn't stop them bombing Iraq though.

Quote:
But indeed it has been discovered. It is of low grade, though. And still, it'll benefit a lot of our proletarians, if not all.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... -falklands

Doesn't look too promising.

Quote:
There is a british nation, weather you like it or not.


There is in the imagination of certain people who identify as part of this nation. It is not however an actual community. It is an artificial construct which we are told we are part of and ought to participate in. It's the same when people try and lump all members of a worldwide religion together (the Umma in Islam for example). Religious leaders tell them they are all part of one community but they obviosuly are not. This community only exists in the imaginations of those who envisage it.

Quote:
Yeah, because I wouldn't care to have a NATO base on my country. But I do!! The conflict here was started and continued by the brititsh, not the argentinian government.


If NATO put a base in Montivideo it would be a much greater threat to Argentina (closer to Buenos Aires) than the Falklands base. It would also be perfectly legal in international law as it would be in Uruguay and not violate any Argentinian claims. You would complain about that but there would be nothing you could do legally.

Quote:
Now that's a stupid reply.


No it isn't. You were the one who implied all Cubans and Palestinians think the same about Guantanamo and Palestine. I'm saying that since they all have different opinions (are you honestly going to deny that millions of people think differently about certain issues?), we cannot be sure what all Cubans and Palestinians think (and thus what all Argentinians think).

Quote:
Yet, the majority, the people, have a strong stance against foreign occupation.


You've asked all 40 million of them?

Quote:
Exactly, that doesn't mean it isn't a fight worth fighting for.


I'd say the fight against the Argentinian bourgeoisie is the fight much more worth fighting for.

Quote:
So, Marxists don't 'compares "the people" against "the elite", and urges social and political system changes'? Populism is the people leading the government. Europeans seem to have a hard time with that concept.


I gave you the definition of populism in English. Maybe it means something different in Spanish.




Quote:
gRed, your hypothetical about the First World War is really out of place, given the imbalance of power between the two countries, Argentina being a developing country long exposed to the whims of European and American imperialism and Britain being among the countries to dish it out.


I used it to point out how communists are still susceptible to being manipulated by "their" bourgeoisie using nationalism.

Quote:
The islands are a symbol of faded British power and pride, and constitute a tremendous expense to garrison, sitting thousands of miles from Britain while depriving Argentina of an area contiguous to its territorial waters. Incidentally, they also serve as a potential forward deployment base that could prove helpful in the event that a South American country might need to be bombed into democracy.


Unlikley. The most likely targets for those will be the countries in the north of Latin America in which case the US mainland and bases in Columbia are nearer.


Here's an idea. Why not give the Islands to Paraguay? They are a developing country and could do with any oil revenues gleaned from the surrounding waters. Argentina has plenty of oil reserves already and Paraguay could really do with the revenue. This helps a developing country, weakens British imperialism and allows the Argentinian people to concentrate on more important matters.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3825
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 23:12
gRed Britain wrote:
And just how socialist is it prepared to go? I am skeptical of reformists like this because eventually the bourgeoisie say enough is enough and dig their heels in. Tony Blair's government claimed to be left-of-centre, working for the common man (the Labour Party) and which practised the 'Third Way'. This party was (and still is) part of the Socialist International. Didn't stop them bombing Iraq though.

We don't bomb anyone. We don't have the capability nor we want it.
We'll go as socialist as the people want us to be. One thing the peronist movement has been doing since 2003 is moving continuously to the left. And when peronism becomes a barrier, we'll cross it.

Quote:
There is in the imagination of certain people who identify as part of this nation. It is not however an actual community. It is an artificial construct which we are told we are part of and ought to participate in. It's the same when people try and lump all members of a worldwide religion together (the Umma in Islam for example). Religious leaders tell them they are all part of one community but they obviosuly are not. This community only exists in the imaginations of those who envisage it.

Of course a community exists only in the imagination of its members. Of course it's an artificial construct. That doesn't mean it's not real and the base of today's social organization.

Quote:
If NATO put a base in Montivideo it would be a much greater threat to Argentina (closer to Buenos Aires) than the Falklands base. It would also be perfectly legal in international law as it would be in Uruguay and not violate any Argentinian claims. You would complain about that but there would be nothing you could do legally.

Yeah, but thee isn't a base of NATO in Montevideo. It's in Malvinas. It's not near Buenos Aires, it's but only 700km from Rio Gallegos. We wouldn't be able to do anything legally if Uruguay wants to have one (which they clearly don't) but we can do it about the one in Malvinas.

Quote:
No it isn't. You were the one who implied all Cubans and Palestinians think the same about Guantanamo and Palestine. I'm saying that since they all have different opinions (are you honestly going to deny that millions of people think differently about certain issues?), we cannot be sure what all Cubans and Palestinians think (and thus what all Argentinians think).

You've asked all 40 million of them?

There has been too many polls on this subject here. Of course the majority of argentinians want the islands back.

Quote:
I'd say the fight against the Argentinian bourgeoisie is the fight much more worth fighting for.

And we're fighting both at the same time. Is that too hard to understand?


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 14 Jun 2012, 23:40
Quote:
We don't bomb anyone. We don't have the capability nor we want it.


Not saying you do, I just used it as an example that supposedly progressive bourgeois governments are still bourgeois governments (and thus imperialist).

Quote:
We'll go as socialist as the people want us to be. One thing the peronist movement has been doing since 2003 is moving continuously to the left. And when peronism becomes a barrier, we'll cross it.


Fair enough. I just hope you guys are prepared to ditch Peronism as soon as the limits of its progression have been reached (and can take the proletariat with you).

Quote:
Of course a community exists only in the imagination of its members. Of course it's an artificial construct. That doesn't mean it's not real and the base of today's social organization.


And today's social organisation is a bourgeois capitalist one. The Bourgeoisie use the nation concept to help maintain this organisation. We oppose this organisation thus we must fight against the nation concept as it is a weapon of the bourgeoisie for dulling proletarian class consciousness.

Quote:
And we're fighting both at the same time. Is that too hard to understand?


You aren't because going all up in arms when the bourgeoisie complain about the Islands helps support the bourgeoisie. They are using the nation concept to gain support. Didn't the junta in '82 launch the war partly because they sensed public sentiment was moving too much against them? It's a classic line really. The bourgeoisie always try and stir up international conflicts and patriotic feelings when they sense the proletariat is getting restive. Putin recently said in one of his election speeches after there were riots in Moscow "the question is: do you love Russia?" Hardly a sound economic policy is it? But of course the point of it was to stir up patriotic support (by suggesting that the opposition would harm the things Russian people love in some unspecified way)and thus support for the Russian status quo.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron