>Jim Devine: > >Instead of such a single-factor explanation, I'd say that Anglo-American > >imperialism was _allied with_ the hacienda- and plantation-owners. Louis writes: >Alliances are only made between equals. The "alliance" between >Anglo-American imperialism and the landed gentry in Latin America was like >the alliance between Richard Nixon and the black bourgeoisie. You should become an academic, since you're so good at splitting hairs. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
- Garbled messages Louis Proyect
- Re: Garbled messages Ken Hanly
- Re Postscript to Garbled messages, was Spinoza.... Carrol Cox
- Re: Re Postscript to Garbled messages, was ... Michael Perelman
- Unfree Labor, Subsistence, & Depend... Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Unfree Labor, Subsistence, &am... Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Unfree Labor, Subsiste... Louis Proyect
- single-factor theory vs. a... Jim Devine
- Re: single-factor theory v... Louis Proyect
- Re: Re: Re: single-factor ... Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Re: single-factor ... Stephen E Philion
- Re: Re: Re: Re: single-fac... Louis Proyect
- Re: Re: single-factor theo... Michael Perelman
- Re: single-factor theory v... Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Unfree Labor, Subsistence,... Yoshie Furuhashi
- RE: Re Postscript to Garbled messages, was ... Mark Jones
- Re: RE: Re Postscript to Garbled messag... Doyle Saylor
- Re: Re: RE: Re Postscript to Garbl... Ken Hanly
- Re: Re: Re: RE: Re Postscript ... Michael Perelman
- RE: Re: RE: Re Postscript to Garbl... Mark Jones
