< http://www.thenation.com >
FEATURE STORY | Special Report
Terrorism and Globalization
by DOUG HENWOOD
The organizers of the Globalization and Resistance Conference, held at
the City University of New York's Graduate Center on November 16 and
17, had a very bad stroke of luck. They started pl
Doug tells the truth..
by Doug Henwood
(((
CB: Doug, if imperialism/globalization is not the main cause of terrorism, what is the
cause of terrorism ?
(((
But are
> things really that simple? Latin America and East> Asia, two of the
> reg
At 22/11/01 23:18 -0800, you wrote:
>< http://www.thenation.com >
>FEATURE STORY | Special Report
>
>Terrorism and Globalization
>by DOUG HENWOOD
Doug's ability to "doubt everything" serves him well in this journalistic
article which for the audience, may be more creative than coming up with
p
"The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in
favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan
towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis,
he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastructur
Doug seems to suggest that since Afghan. has been relatively untouched by
globalization, the link between terror and globalization has yet to be
proved.
Of course, I have not heard of any Afghani terrorists; supposedly many of
the hijackers on S 11 were from Saudi Arabia.
--
Michael Perelman
Ec
> I am sure Michael will want this thread closed
> for content, as he did in November, but perhaps
> Max can clarify where the technical problem is.
>
> Chris Burford
Such things happen every now and then. Virus is definitely one
possibility, a very long and very slow trip with delays around
the
whoa, Mark. Rather than characterize Doug as a craven apologist, let him
elaborate if he wants to do so.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>When assessing 'the truth' of Henwood's politics, let us begin with this
>obvious fact -- the man is simply a craven apologist for exterminism, for
>US imperialism in its newest and most lethal guise.
>
>
Oh, he's worse than that. He's a running dog of the imperialist bourgeoisie,
a flak for
Mark in the apoplectic mode contends:
"The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in
favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan
towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis,
he favours the destruction of whatever
>
> Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. Doug, Steve, Joan
> Robinson, etc. are saying that under capitalism it's better to be
> employed than unemployed; Ali, Paul, etc. are saying that capitalism
> on the periphery is very much worse than other modes of production &
> especially so wh
Christian writes:>To be "unemployed" is to be within capital's orbit (ie it's a
distinction that applies to populations constructed statistically by nation-states and
super-national bodies.) Robinson is saying that being outside of that orbit is far
worse than being in it. That is, even unemploy
> > Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. Doug, Steve, Joan
>> Robinson, etc. are saying that under capitalism it's better to be
>> employed than unemployed; Ali, Paul, etc. are saying that capitalism
>> on the periphery is very much worse than other modes of production &
>> especia
MJ: "The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in
favour of US policy, that is, Henwood favours the policy of bombing Afghan
towns and cities, he favours the random and/or mass slaughter of Afghanis,
he favours the destruction of whatever remains of the social infrastr
"And Afghanistan, their current home, is
almost entirely outside the circuits of global trade
and capital
flows--an exclusion that contributes greatly to its
extreme poverty
and social disintegration. (As the economist Joan
Robinson once said,
under capitalism, "the misery of being exploited by
ca
Doug went into more detail in LBO, but Stephen, you should not pile onto
the flames by attacking Mark.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 07:12:22AM -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote:
>
> --Wierd, on other lists I've not seen any evidence of this. He's
> challenged the likes of Leo Casey on LBO and Soc. Regis
I wrote to Max an hour ago trying to find out the origin of this. Mark
has not been here for some time.
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:28:18AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> >MJ: "The truth"about Doug 'I'm no pacifist' Henwood is that he, too, is in
> >favour of US policy, tha
At 17/05/02 00:28 -0400, you wrote:
>Where the fuck did this come from? And why is it dated Nov 24 2002?
>
>Doug
The letter from Mark Jones quoted by Max was originally sent on Fri, 23 Nov
2001 16:04:31 +
Although Max sent a number of posts on this thread on 26 Nov I can find no
record o
I think that we can drop the title of this thread.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 matches
Mail list logo
