we oppose? That is the point at issue. A factory occupation is an act of aggression: does this mean we should support the boss against the workers? A riot is an act of aggression: should we support the use of the police terrorise brutalise those taking We say that oppression is the cause of aggression, and this is what should be opposed.
Any oppressor can manipulate events in a dispute so that it appears to be the injured party, when the real cause of the conflict is a longstanding injustice, sustained might of the oppressor over decades and even centuries.
'The Malvinas were taken from the Argentinian people by force over 150 This is pointed out in an The Malvinas were taken from the Argentinian people by force over 150 years ago.
advert entitled 'some facts you may want to know about the Malvinas and have never been told,' inserted in the Times on 24 April 1982 by a group of Argentinian Americans. to 1811, it points out, Spain claimed the islands; this claim was disputed by no one. In 1774 Spain put the islands under Buenos Aires' jurisdiction and handed over this task to the newly independent nation of 1816. In 1820 Argentinians settled on the islands.
On January 1833 the British came in force, ordered the Argentinians out and forbade them to return. Is this aggression justified because it has been unanswered for a hundred and fifty years?
But even setting these facts aside, the underlying issue is this: Britain is an imperialist and colonial nation WILA economic empire worth over £67bn in foreign investments -the government's own figures. Argentina dependent foreign debts of over f16bn.
Argentina's major owned by investors perialist nations - including large shareholdings.
Sacmis: Cretenge 21 May 1962 earnings of British over and come from overseas.
part?
class depends on millions slaves throughout the world.
alice ed OCC American armed keeping debt collectors crushers.
their iron grip.
The 'something profits.
1600 now: do we If British workers try sion which Argentinian workers.
simply oppress defeat according to industries are the im- group of Argentina's page & Thus Argentina, with a foreign debt of £16½bn, pays £2bn per year in service charges on this debt alone; while Britain has an income from foreign investment of f8bn and a further income from the City's 'invisible' f2.5bn. Over bosses' profits What does this mean? If you strip it of all legal niceties, according to which Argentinian workers 'of their own free will' contract to sell their labour to British bosses, our ruling of wage But slavery can only be maintainThe and forces, allegedly 'world law and order', are and rebellionThey are not just lighting 'communism' but every revolt against This is why America has backed Britain and not Argentina. As one American diplomat told Newsweek rather shamefacedly never told them that we cared about things other than communist subversion and now they're surprised to find that something else matters more.
else' was imperialist The problem facing socialists is support all rebellions helps against our slave-owners or does it depend who is leading them? Argentinian workers are exploited by British bosses whoever is in the government.
to pick and choose who to support against Thatcher, we will participate in the oppresner class visils on LO LIC But these Argentinian workers are in a different situation: their bosses them and no else. Galtieri's actions cannot harm British workers: but Thatcher's actions can and do harm Argentinian workers.
we, as socialists, seek unly Delween the workers of the world to capitalist aggression against the working class. This is the only way to remove all relations of force and oppression from society, by removing their foundation: class society. But unity between workers is impossible, as Lenin argued incessantly, while any workers supports the violence of its own ruling class against other workers. It is Thatcher's aggression that must be opposed: and in BriWho do you trust to fight fascism? Argentinian oppositionist Blimps