[Marxism] My good bye to a thug

[Nestor Gorojovsky]

[I have been considering whether my "final note" to the Cloke`s thread 
was enough. It wasn´t. So that I am sending to the list something I 
drafted before that e-mail. There might be some repetitions. But there 
is also something else, which I would rather see on the list tan not.]

> Oh, my.
> 
> J.M.P.Cloke en lboro.ac.uk escribió:
>>
>> And therefore, had the Argentinian military dictatorship and its 
>> supporting clique amongst the bourgeoisie defeated the UK armed forces 
>> and re-established control over the Falklands, thus reinforcing itself 
>> in power and strengthening its ability to oppress and commit mass 
>> murder against the Argentine working class, petit bourgeoisie and, 
>> well, lefties, academics, activists, the usual suspects, that would 
>> have been a step forward in the international class struggle, would it?
> 
> Mr. Cloke, the "Argentinian dictatorship" was not such because it was 
> "military" but because it was pro-oligarchic, sepoy and pro-imperialist.
> 
> You have not answered to my question on whether you are a Marxist or 
> not. From what I have been reading from you, I gather that you aren´t, 
> so that I will act, from this posting onwards, in that assumption.
> 
> Had you been a Marxist, I would have had to explain you that the 
> concrete derivations of a victorious warfare of a semicolonial country 
> with an imperialist and thuggish "democracy" have been analyzed, with 
> great cogency and interest by among others Lev Davidovich Bronstein, AKA 
> Trotsky, mainly through his experience with the Mexican governmet of 
> Lázaro Cárdenas. Among other conclusions, Trotsky discovered that in a 
> war between "fascist" Brazil and "democratic" Britain, every Marxist 
> should side with Brazil, not less because the defeat of the imperialist 
> thug -Britain, I mean- would be a great step ahead in the general 
> warfare of the working and oppressed classes against capitalism, but 
> also and essentially because once a pro-imperialist authoritarian regime 
> (and in a semicolony, this is the _one and single_ serious way you can 
> call a regime "fascist") cuts its ties with imperialism, it needs to 
> turn to the own people of the semicolony against the attack from 
> imperialists.
> 
> This is what would have happened in Argentina if the battles of 1982 had 
> been won by our Armed Forces. In fact, developments began to appear by 
> mid 1982 in that very direction. Which was the main reason why our own 
> "democratic" (that is, sepoy) defeatist pro-imperilaists, both military 
> and civilian, were so eager to bring the war to a fast British victory 
> and dedicated all their efforts to impose as received truth for the 
> Argentineans exactly all the rant you are posing here as a question.
> 
> But, as I said, I am not convinced at all that you are a Marxist.
> 
> Thus, I have to understand that you are just another "progressive" 
> imperialist.
> 
> Under _this_ assumption, my only answer to you can be "Fuck you, thug! I 
> hope we meet on the battlefield".