[Marxism] Good imperialists vs. evil governments of the oppressed, round 199

[Lou Paulsen]

----- Original Message ----
From: "J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk" <J.M.P.Cloke at lboro.ac.uk>
>Having started all this, I could actually just stay out of it, couldn't I, and let you guys carry on with your fierce denunciations of things you've made up that I haven't said and don't believe.... 

Which part of the logic don't you follow?  And do you really not follow it and not believe those things?  See below:

<[h]aving said which, you interestingly seem to be arguing that the transition from the military regime to the Alfonsin government was a *backward* step for the workers. I'd love to see you argue that one....

You are assuming that the "transition from the military regime to the Alfonsin government" was a direct result of the defeat of the Argentine forces in the Malvinas War.  This is exactly consistent with what I said your position is.  You believe that Margaret Thatcher brought down the junta and put Alfonsin in the presidency.  Since you believe that, you think a British victory was good for the Argentine workers.  But why don't you think it would have been even better for the workers if Thatcher had brought down the junta in 1982, by direct invasion?

However - and I would welcome Nestor's input here - I question your assumption.  The junta's economic policies were already failing before the war.  It's true that Galtieri resigned after the failure of his war policy, but the junta was still in place.  What brought down Bignone?  Wasn't it the economic struggle? And why do you believe that if Argentina had won the war, all its economic problems would have gone away and the working class would have been powerless?

Lou Paulsen