The Falklands War – 20 Years Later¶

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument¶

The central thesis is that the Falklands War of 1982 was a reactionary, counter-revolutionary war from both sides, containing not a single atom of progressive content. The article argues that the conflict was not a war of national liberation by Argentina against British imperialism, but rather a diversionary adventure launched by General Galtieri's military dictatorship to distract the Argentine masses from an explosive domestic crisis. On the British side, Thatcher's government seized the opportunity to bolster the prestige of a declining British imperialism and rescue her own unpopular government. The Marxist tendency alone — represented at the time by Militant — correctly opposed the war on class grounds, refusing both the jingoism of the Tories and the inverted chauvinism of the ultra-left sects who called for support for the Argentine junta. The article insists that the duty of Marxists is to maintain complete class independence from both bourgeoisies, to expose the hypocrisy of the ruling class on each side, and to advance slogans that can actually win workers to a revolutionary, internationalist position.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis draws on several foundational Marxist concepts:

Clausewitz's dictum — war as the continuation of policy by other means — is used to insist that Marxists cannot have one policy for peace and another for war; the class position must remain consistent.
Lenin's method on war is examined critically and dialectically. The article distinguishes between Lenin's general principle of revolutionary defeatism, formulated for cadres in 1914 when the movement was disoriented, and the concrete slogans he advanced in 1917 — "peace, bread and land" and "all power to the soviets" — which actually won the masses. The article argues that the ultra-lefts mechanically repeat Lenin's 1914 formulations without understanding that Lenin himself modified his expression when he returned to Russia.
Trotsky's military policy, particularly his 1939–40 writings on the second world war, is presented as the correct method. Trotsky argued that a continuation of the first imperialist war was not a repetition; slogans must be deepened and sharpened in relation to concrete developments. The article draws heavily on Trotsky's analysis of the Saarland question in 1935 to argue against supporting annexation by a reactionary regime, even where formal legal claims exist.
The national question is treated as a minefield requiring a firm class position. The article distinguishes progressive nationalism (of an oppressed colonial people) from reactionary chauvinism (of an imperialist or semi-imperialist state engaged in foreign conquest). Argentina is characterised as a semi-industrialised country with regional imperialist ambitions, not a colony or semi-colony.
Transitional demands — the method of advancing slogans that start from the real consciousness of the workers and raise it to the level of socialist transformation — is central to the critique of both reformist and ultra-left positions.

The article situates itself firmly within the Trotskyist tradition, rejecting both Stalinism (the popular front policy that subordinated workers to "democratic" imperialism) and the sectarian ultra-leftism that mechanically applies revolutionary defeatism without regard for concrete conditions.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article was published in April 2002, twenty years after the war, and its conjunctural analysis operates on two levels:

The 1982 conjuncture (retrospectively analysed): - Argentina: The military dictatorship faced a deepening economic crisis and mass protests on March 30, 1982, when workers took to the streets of Buenos Aires. The regime was "staring overthrow in the face." Galtieri's invasion was a counter-revolutionary gamble to cut across this revolutionary movement. - Britain: Thatcher's government was at an all-time low in the polls, with unemployment topping three million. The war was a mirror-image diversion. The article notes that the British ruling class had been trying to "offload" the Falklands for decades — Nicholas Ridley had presented a leaseback solution to Parliament only two years earlier. - Geopolitically: The US was caught between two allies, initially reluctant to tilt against Argentina for fear of losing influence in Buenos Aires. The article quotes Thatcher's own account of Reagan's hesitation.

The 2002 conjuncture (the moment of writing): - The article notes that twenty years later, the British had done nothing to develop the economic potential of the Islands, confirming that the war was about prestige, not oil or fishing. - It observes that the Argentine masses were "moving to a decisive showdown with the oligarchy" — a reference to the Argentine economic crisis of 2001–2002, when the country defaulted on its debt, the peso was devalued, and mass protests ("cacerolazos") brought down successive governments. The article explicitly links the lessons of 1982 to this unfolding crisis. - The world of 2002 is described as "even more turbulent and unstable, a world of war, revolution and counter-revolution" — a clear reference to the post-9/11 conjuncture and the impending Iraq War, though these are not developed in detail.

Where the Argument Continues¶

The article is self-contained in its core argument but points to several areas for further development:

Lenin's position in the first world war is referenced but not examined in detail, with the note that this has been "dealt with elsewhere" — likely in other Militant/Socialist Appeal articles from the same period.
Trotsky's military policy is invoked as the foundation of the tendency's position, but the article does not elaborate on Trotsky's full analysis of the second world war. The referenced text — Bonapartism, Fascism and War — is the natural next reading.
The Argentine revolutionary situation of 2001–2002 is gestured at but not analysed in depth. The article's final paragraphs call for workers' power in Argentina as the only solution to the Malvinas question, but the concrete developments of the Argentine crisis — the rise and fall of successive presidents, the piquetero movement, the factory occupations — would require separate treatment.
The question of transitional demands in wartime is raised as a general method but not fully elaborated for the specific conditions of 1982 Britain. The article mentions the demand for a general election and a socialist federation of Argentina, Britain and the Falklands, but does not detail how these were received or developed in practice.

Connections¶

Trotsky, Bonapartism, Fascism and War (1939–40) — The key theoretical text on the Marxist approach to the second imperialist war, directly cited as the foundation of the tendency's military policy.
Trotsky, writings on the Saarland (1935) — Used as the decisive analogy for opposing annexation by a reactionary regime despite formal legal claims.
Trotsky, hypothetical on Brazil (1938) — The article devotes considerable space to refuting the ultra-lefts' misuse of this passage, distinguishing between a war of imperialist subjugation (which Trotsky addressed) and a diversionary adventure by a reactionary dictatorship (which the Falklands War was).
Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky and writings on the first world war — The article draws on Lenin's method but insists on reading it dialectically, not mechanically.
James Connolly — Quoted on the question of land and nationality: "Ireland was not its earth and soil, its flag, or its title deeds, but its people."
The Militant tendency's own writings from 1982 — The article claims these can be reproduced without changing a word, positioning the current analysis as continuous with the tendency's historical position.
Against the stream — The article's method of distinguishing between the tendency's correct line and the errors of reformists, Stalinists, and ultra-lefts is characteristic of the RCI's broader polemical approach.

Key Quotes¶

"This war unleashed by the Argentinean dictatorship contained not a single atom of progressive content - and certainly nothing in the interest of the working class. It had nothing in common with a war of national liberation against British imperialism as some pseudo-Marxists claimed at the time. It was a counter-revolutionary adventure, reflecting the expansionist ambitions of the Argentinean capitalist class and its desperation to avoid overthrow."
"The real reason for the war was that British imperialism could not accept the seizure of the Islands by Argentina because it would have undermined its prestige on a world scale. When the Argentine army captured the Islands, British imperialism was humiliated before the entire world. The photographs of British soldiers lying on the ground - having been taken prisoner by the Argentineans - placed a question mark over every treaty signed by Britain with countries in the Middle East and elsewhere."
"The idea that Marxists should support the forcible annexation and conquest of a piece of land against the will of the people who live there is a violation of the most elementary democratic principles. Before the invasion the population of the Falklands had enjoyed the same democratic rights as people in Britain. The Argentinean junta, having destroyed all the rights of its own people was now trampling underfoot the rights of people that had nothing to do with them."
"The sects repeat like parrots the ABCs of Marxism, but it never enters their heads that after the ABC there are other letters in the alphabet. That it is obligatory for Marxists to oppose imperialist war is an elementary proposition that a child of six could tell you. However, as Trotsky explained at great length in 1939-40, it is also necessary to explain this to the workers in language they can understand, taking into consideration all the concrete conditions."
"The majority of the workers were won over, not by 'revolutionary defeatism', but by slogans that expressed their immediate needs: 'peace, bread and land' and 'all power to the soviets'. Not a word of this is understood by the ultra-lefts, who have read a couple of lines Lenin wrote in 1914, and therefore imagine themselves to be great geniuses."
"The great Marxist James Connolly explained long ago that we cannot accept capitalism's ownership of land whether the fields of a single farm or an entire country. Ireland, he explained, was not its earth and soil, its flag, or its title deeds, but its people. That is a good starting-point for the working-out of a final solution to the Malvinas-Falklands question, which can only be solved through socialist revolution and an internationalist policy."