The thread on globalization seems to be very valuable. Much like the debates about the mode of production in developing countries in the 60s, it has important implications for political action. The Rethinking Marxism debate, in contrast, seems to serve no other purpose other than reopening old wounds. We are weak enough that we do not to fight each other. Yes, I realize that bad tactics can also fragment a movement. Recall the repression that would follow Bakunin's periodic announcements of revolutionary takeovers. On a narrow U.S., note: I have been hearing the hoopla about FDR in recent days. I suspect that he was no more courageous nor visionary than Clinton. He had fewer money troubles, but was also a womanizer. FDR and Nixon, for that matter, had strong protest movements that pushed them forward. Clinton gets a free ride. Let us keep our eye on the real enemies. Whether you agree with RM, postmodernism, Leninist, Trostskyist, or Stalinist politics is not as important as getting something real done when, as in the U.S., Clinton and the Republicans can sit down in a room and negotiate a budget, leaving Dick Gephart to represent the people. We are in a sorry fix and need to get something done. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
