they have claim to the islands because they fucking live there dude
because i'm sensing a "you're just a british nationalist" coming in the immediate future, i'll just make my position clear
if the islanders decided that they would rather be argentinian, i would wholeheartedly support argentina's claim to the islands
This. People first. Peoples right to self determination and democracy from top to bottom in society is paramount. As communists, that principle is absolute.
You're acting like the Argentinian government is gonna massacre them the second power is transferred. Probably nothing would change but Argentina would get the profit from oil and tourism.
Like Argentinians are not on average wealthy people. The British people living on those islands probably have it way better than most of the people in Argentina. It's kind of gross.
Idealist nonsense, says the person who wants to divide up all natural resources equally into amorphous national state boundaries regardless of the wishes of the people who live there, until all national states have equal populations, areas, and access to natural wealth?
You're literally just spewing more idealist nonsense. You know that countries are a thing that still exist right? Either Argentina gets to benefit from the islands, or Britain (lmao) does. You're saying the British should benefit because they colonized some islands hundreds of years ago and there's a couple thousand people there. If there was 1 person living in the Falklands, would that justify oil and gas drilling and a British military outpost?
people who live in a place when they have not displaced a native population do matter more than a random government who are pursuing an imperial claim from their former imperial masters yes
Or maybe (radical, I know, wow), people matter equally, and we shouldn't forcibly deport or integrate them into various countries due to arbitrary vibes?
lmao are y'all trying to do a "reverse colonialism" thing? Literally the only thing that would likely change is who they pay taxes to and where they get there food from (shipped from Argentina probably instead of shipped 7,000 miles).
this is why the Nazi occupation of Jersey was good and socialist after all the island is closer to continental Europe than England and that is the only relevant factor when deciding which country an island should be in. The fact that they culturally are English and don't speak German or French as a rule is for some reason irrelevant here
Alberto Fernandez has already implemented some social policies. Countries like Venezuela use oil money to directly benefit the public. Imperial powers all have more wealth among the populations than non-imperial powers. Maybe a non-imperial power should get access to oil off their coast? It would be as easy aa nationalizing the oil there, as many countries do.
And that wealth doesn't translate into better living standards. It's almost as if capitalists will hoard resources no matte rhow much is available.
This is such obviously false coping.
Capitalist countries, famous for nationalitising resources
A bunch of capitalist countries have been nationalizing their resources.
the oil in the area is not valuable not to be extracted.
Must be why Britain has spent billions to setup extraction. This is just "Venezuelan crude isn't profitable" all over again. Imagine thinking oil isn't profitable.
This is the important distinction. Settling previously uninhabited areas is good, or at least neutral. The problem with settler colonialism is the genocide and theft, not the people living where they previously hadn’t.
resource extraction near some town? And they're not like colnized oppressed people they're just some probably comfortable British people. They're not in some anti-colonial struggle give me a break.
They're not colonized or oppressed because Argentina's attempt to turn them into such failed. If Argentina gained control of the Falklands then the inhabitants would become oppressed because you can't maintain a presence in a place over and against the will of the people there without doing a little oppression.
There's a point where it tips from "just some people living on an island" and becomes "Britain maintaining an imperial outpost for resource extraction".
they have claim to the islands because they fucking live there dude
because i'm sensing a "you're just a british nationalist" coming in the immediate future, i'll just make my position clear
if the islanders decided that they would rather be argentinian, i would wholeheartedly support argentina's claim to the islands
This. People first. Peoples right to self determination and democracy from top to bottom in society is paramount. As communists, that principle is absolute.
You're acting like the Argentinian government is gonna massacre them the second power is transferred. Probably nothing would change but Argentina would get the profit from oil and tourism.
Like Argentinians are not on average wealthy people. The British people living on those islands probably have it way better than most of the people in Argentina. It's kind of gross.
Humans don't exist to create profit for the Argentinian government.
lol idealist nonsense. Argentinians would see more wealth from owning the islands than they do now.
Idealist nonsense, says the person who wants to divide up all natural resources equally into amorphous national state boundaries regardless of the wishes of the people who live there, until all national states have equal populations, areas, and access to natural wealth?
You're literally just spewing more idealist nonsense. You know that countries are a thing that still exist right? Either Argentina gets to benefit from the islands, or Britain (lmao) does. You're saying the British should benefit because they colonized some islands hundreds of years ago and there's a couple thousand people there. If there was 1 person living in the Falklands, would that justify oil and gas drilling and a British military outpost?
yes, because people matter more than realpolitik shit
Apparently poor Argentinians who could benefit from social program funding don't matter, but white British people living in a colonial outpost do.
people who live in a place when they have not displaced a native population do matter more than a random government who are pursuing an imperial claim from their former imperial masters yes
Or maybe (radical, I know, wow), people matter equally, and we shouldn't forcibly deport or integrate them into various countries due to arbitrary vibes?
When did anyone say anything about deporting people?
Sorry, my bad, you're going with "forcibly integrating".
lmao are y'all trying to do a "reverse colonialism" thing? Literally the only thing that would likely change is who they pay taxes to and where they get there food from (shipped from Argentina probably instead of shipped 7,000 miles).
it isn't "reverse colonialism" it's just colonialism
deleted by creator
this is why the Nazi occupation of Jersey was good and socialist after all the island is closer to continental Europe than England and that is the only relevant factor when deciding which country an island should be in. The fact that they culturally are English and don't speak German or French as a rule is for some reason irrelevant here
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Does Britain have a higher standard of living than Argentina?
deleted by creator
Alberto Fernandez has already implemented some social policies. Countries like Venezuela use oil money to directly benefit the public. Imperial powers all have more wealth among the populations than non-imperial powers. Maybe a non-imperial power should get access to oil off their coast? It would be as easy aa nationalizing the oil there, as many countries do.
deleted by creator
This is such obviously false coping.
A bunch of capitalist countries have been nationalizing their resources.
Must be why Britain has spent billions to setup extraction. This is just "Venezuelan crude isn't profitable" all over again. Imagine thinking oil isn't profitable.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah it's so inconvenient for these people to exist.
deleted by creator
Settler 👌 Settler-colonial 👎💀
This is the important distinction. Settling previously uninhabited areas is good, or at least neutral. The problem with settler colonialism is the genocide and theft, not the people living where they previously hadn’t.
You're repeating rhetoric without considering context.
deleted by creator
Historically, how have occupying powers dealt with local populations that overwhelmingly don't want them there?
Yeah those occupying powers like the British Empire. You're gonna act like Alberto Fernandez is gonna massacre some people living on an island lol.
A hostile local population is an obstacle to resource exploitation and capitalists will remove that obstacle one way or another.
resource extraction near some town? And they're not like colnized oppressed people they're just some probably comfortable British people. They're not in some anti-colonial struggle give me a break.
They're not colonized or oppressed because Argentina's attempt to turn them into such failed. If Argentina gained control of the Falklands then the inhabitants would become oppressed because you can't maintain a presence in a place over and against the will of the people there without doing a little oppression.
deleted by creator
There's a point where it tips from "just some people living on an island" and becomes "Britain maintaining an imperial outpost for resource extraction".
So you're saying that sometimes it's ok to conquer people who have done nothing but exist, as a treat.
Again you're acting like a transfer of ownership from THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT to Argentina is "conquering" lmao.
How you gonna transfer ownership if the people living there don't want to transfer ownership?
edit: wait we've seen this one before, let's do some greatest hits and get hundreds of people killed again.
Literally Richard Spencer "peaceful relocation" bullshit at this point.
Who said they had to relocate?
No one, full support for just killing Argentinian occupation soldiers until they go home.
deleted by creator