SWP does another retrospective u-turn

Submitted by martin on 6 April, 2007 - 6:30

In 1982, the Socialist Workers’ Party, still retaining bits of a “Third Camp” (independent working class) political tradition from its old slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow, but international socialism”, took a roughly similar attitude on the British-Argentine war over the Falkland Islands to that of Socialist Organiser, forerunner of Workers’ Liberty.

Like us, they said, in effect, “neither London nor Buenos Aires”.

The 4 April 2007 Socialist Worker rewrites their position (without saying that it is doing so), the better to square it with their current politics.

For the SWP 1982 position, see for example this article, opening with the words: “We dismiss the notion that the Argentinian seizure of the Falklands is progressive on anti-colonialist grounds".

And this is the 2007 version:

25 years after the war: Give the Falklands back

Twenty five years ago Socialist Worker refused to defend British ownership of the Falklands and opposed Margaret Thatcher’s war to wrest back control from the Argentinians.

Today taking a clear anti-war position might not seem unusual, but in 1982 we were one of few voices, even on the left, to oppose Thatcher's war.

Tony Blair did criticise the decision to dispatch the task force, but the reaction to his words seems to have made him a fervent convert to the cause of war.

Twenty five years ago the war in the South Atlantic seemed a throwback to a bygone imperial age. In hindsight it was part of a process where war became more and more central to the global capitalist system.

The justification for war offered by Thatcher and Labour’s then leader Michael Foot compared the Argentinian military regime to Hitler and attacked opponents of war for appeasing fascism. The same arguments have been paraded for each of the five wars Tony Blair has taken us into since coming to office.

The Falklands are a colonial possession, seized and re-won by force of arms. They should be returned to Argentina.

Comments

Submitted by Jason on Mon, 09/04/2007 - 10:11

Actually Duncan Hallas statement in the first paragraph of the link provided is very good:

"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."

Perhaps, 'lesser evil' is not the right way to oput it- it's about how a defeat for imperialism benefits the working class here and in the semi-colonies. In the semi-colonies we are for the working class to come to the head ofthe ressitance to arm the workers against imperialism and so they can also organsie and use their arms and skills learned in battle against the bourgeois dictatorship at home.
May be it should be reused today:
We are not pacifists, we detest the US occupoer 'Iraqi' government bourgeois dictatorship and the Sadr dictatorship in waiting, we dismiss the notion that the Islamist leadership of the resistance is progressive on anti-colonialist grounds. Nevertheless we believe that, in a war between Britain and Iraq, the defeat of British imperialism is the lesser evil. The main enemy is at home.

Instead the SWP line up behind parliamentrary rtuses- troops out by October and the AWL? I haven't even seen you recently on the anti-war demonstrations. You tacitly support the occupation!

Submitted by Clive on Mon, 09/04/2007 - 13:32

I think this whole framework, 'defeat is the lesser evil', is misconceived. This is not just on the grounds of general arguments about 'lesser evils', but specifically in the context of wars. (See Hal Draper's work on the slogan of 'revolutionary defeatism').

It is not at all clear that the defeat of Britain by Islamist sectarians would be 'better'. For whom? By what criteria? A victory for reactionary forces would be a pretty miserable result for many people - women, gay men, trade unionists, etc etc - in Iraq. Conversely, I'm not entirely sure what a 'victory' for Britain means under the circumstances. In the war itself - I mean the 2003 invasion - would a victory for Saddam have been the lesser evil? Perhaps: if you imagine a quick defeat for the US and UK forces, and construct a scenario in which the Iraqi masses, spurred on by this victory against imperialism, would have turned on their immediate oppressor.

In fact it would have required an intense and bloody, long-drawn out struggle, even worse than what has unfolded since. And if Saddam had emerged victorious from that...? It seems to me flippant in the extreme to think that would have been a 'lesser evil' compared to what has actually occurred.

The whole framework seems wrong to me. It's not a matter of choosing between this side or the other emerging victorious, but of how we can help an alternative to both emerge and prove victorious over both. Why tie our attitude to wars to desiring the victory of this side or that - or the defeat of this side or that?

Submitted by Pete on Mon, 09/04/2007 - 13:56

In reply to by Clive

Just the link here to Draper's article that Clive mentions above.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.