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.

How to solve the Malvinas question – and how not to solve it. Alan Woods concludes his analysis on the Malvinas posing the question from a class point of view. And in response to the scandalous accusation that we are somehow apologists for British imperialism, he also explains the position of the British Marxists on Ireland, explaining that we were the only ones who opposed the sending in of the troops back in 1969, and have always maintained a consistent class position throughout. This is the last part.

There is widespread opposition to the Mesa government, however the general strike that was supposed to take place in Februaray this did not take place. Jorge Martin looks at the factors that explain this. The situation remains an explosive one.

The National Enlarged Meeting of the Bolivian Workers' Union (COB) on April 8, convened in the mining stronghold of Huanuni, decided to call a general strike and national road blockades starting from May 2nd. The call has the support of the peasant unions organised in the CSUTCB under the leadership of Mallku Felipe Quispe, and could precipitate the fall of Mesa's weak government.

Join us!

Help build the forces of Marxism worldwide!

Join the IMT!

Upcoming Events

No events found