I said:
> >why not? it sure seems to fit the standard definition: peasants take power
> >(under the leadership of a party that is organized along "Leninist" lines,
> >i.e., as a top-down hierarchy of the sort that became popular under Stalin)
> >and the state takes over the means of production.
Louis writes:
>Sorry, Jim. If I am going to discuss Cambodia, it will be on the same basis
>that I discuss anything in depth. I will have to spend time in the Columbia
>library and really dig in. I don't think you have the time nor the
>inclination to keep up your side of the debate, so I will let things drop
>right here.
you were willing to say that the Khmer Rouge's revolution in Cambodia
wasn't socialist without studying the issue in depth.
It's true I don't have the time (though I do have the inclination -- please
do NOT attribute motivations to me since you cannot read my mind), so this
is my last message to pen-l today.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
