Thatcher whole of Latin America If this reasoning was applied consistently, then nor wone never ever engage in strike action.
alone more general political and Neither nor Militant told workers not to prepare recentiv for action in solidarity the railway engineers because was Sid Weighell who was threatening to call such action. We nonetheless knew that Weighell's call was mainly attempting regain some lost credibility over his backing for flexible rostering. We applied that understanding at as anolncl level. HOL strike call. posing the strike same method applies to those making a for the withdrawal of the fleet In reality, it is none of these which Militant's policies. nave been simply thought up after the event i jusury a decision laker on other grounds. The real determinant of Militant's policies is summed up by httle phras 'such demands could get no echo from the mass of workers'. In reality, viewed as the aggressor thoughout the In fact comrade Grant goes an as to real such, really jingoistic, sentiment might very well be progressive. Almost unbelievably he declares. 'If necessary, workers and ine Marxists will be willing to wage the war against the Argentine junta Thatcher's war is not Junta. It is the workers. A similar war prosecuted bv a Labour government or even would Marxist similarly be against the Argentine workers. Comrade Grant falls into this confusion because he Inks lial tnis is a war ike World War II. In order to sense or such analogy, though, Grant has to argue that Argen. tina is an imperialist power and that 'the junta's claim to the Falklands is purely an imperialist aim' It is true that Argentina is one of the most developed countries Latin America. But from this fact it by / no means follows that Argentina is imperialist. Urbanisation, capitalist re ons toe countryside and a certain also signity that imperialism could still play a progressive role con. signing much of Lenin and Trotsky to the scrap heap.
To make this judgment such superficial criteria as that Buenos Aires has a stock exchange is totally unserious. Does this make Hong Kong or Singapore imperialist countries?
But here again, this argument is not even taken seriously by the author states, had there part he states, been a colony of 100,000 Argentinians, a case for colonial could been made out'. But why?
perialist then wouldn't change one jot our defeatist position no matter how many people were on ine Islands. The fate of 'little Belgium' or any other imperialist coun try facing German aggres onu une secone worl War, didn't alter our attitude of defeatism.
But the point works-the other way round. doesn't mater whether there is one single Argentine on the MalvinasFalklands, in so far as the Argentine people experience occupabecomes part of their fight SCIl determination This we defend unconditionally.
Militant claims to stand on the side of British readily it is neginhing lo reality is beginning to so bo. in is time to cal both It is time to Militant leaders to order.