On March 30, 1982, in response to Argentina's deepening economic crisis, and the repression of General Galtieri's military-police dictatorship, the workers had taken to the streets of Buenos Aires. The regime was staring overthrow in the face. It responded by starting a war, one of the principal aims of which was to distract the attention of the masses. In all wars the policy and analysis of every organisation is put to the test. The analysis made by the Marxists, on the other hand, remains as valid as when it was written. Unlike other tendencies we can reproduce everything we wrote twenty years ago without changing a single word.
In the three
articles that Luis Oviedo has written in answer to my article
published on January 7 (Marxism versus Sectarianism - Reply to Luis Oviedo) a number of very important issues are raised. These
questions deserve the most careful consideration by Marxists in Britain,
Argentina and internationally. However, in order to clarify the issues raised
and to educate the cadres (which ought to be the aim of every polemic) it is
necessary to avoid heated language, distortions and personal attacks that only
serve to divert attention away from the political questions. Such an approach
will only confuse matters instead of clarifying them.
Alan Woods continues his reply laying emphasis on the position of the
Communist International on the mass organisations and stressing the need to
unite the piqueteros movement in Argentina. To be continued.
We continue this reply by taking up the question of the 1982
Malvinas/Falklands war, explaining what the real position of the British
Marxists was at the time. In answer to Oviedo's blatant distortions Alan Woods
explains that they opposed the war as an imperialist war on both sides, and
adopted a genuine internationalist position. To be continued.
How did Lenin and Trotsky pose the question of war? What emphasis did
they put on the right of self-determination? In replying to Oviedo, Alan Woods
puts the record straight. He also explains how countries like Argentina, Turkey,
Pakistan, etc., are weak imperialist powers, subject to the domination of the
major imperialist powers while at the same time having their own imperialist
ambitions locally. To be continued.