At 23/03/02 09:11 +, I wrote:
At 21/03/02 14:12 -0600, you wrote:
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>
> As far as I can see, we are about to engage in the same old
fight
> between reformists and revolutionaries(not necessarily
> "Marxist-Leninists"). I am sure everybody here heard
enough of
> such fights, s
At 21/03/02 14:12 -0600, you wrote:
>Sabri Oncu wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can see, we are about to engage in the same old fight
> > between reformists and revolutionaries(not necessarily
> > "Marxist-Leninists"). I am sure everybody here heard enough of
> > such fights, so let us leave this at
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>
> As far as I can see, we are about to engage in the same old fight
> between reformists and revolutionaries(not necessarily
> "Marxist-Leninists"). I am sure everybody here heard enough of
> such fights, so let us leave this at that.
>
Whether the fight takes that form or
Chris writes:
> This question concretely becomes one of whether
> the major transnational financial corporations
> would oppose a more peaceful, juster world. Not
> necessarily. They would be treacherous friends.
> They might tolerate a small measure of regulation
> in order to continue to extact
At 20/03/02 15:01 -0800, Sabri wrote:
>Chris writes:
>
> > Therefore as far as world politics are concerned,
> > I am probably essentially calling for a sort of new
> > democracy, which involves progressive class
> > alliances, ie a national democratic stage which ideally
> > would not be dominat
Chris writes:
> Therefore as far as world politics are concerned,
> I am probably essentially calling for a sort of new
> democracy, which involves progressive class
> alliances, ie a national democratic stage which ideally
> would not be dominated by the progressive bourgeoisie.
>
> Concrete wor
At 19/03/02 21:41 Sabri wrote:
>Mine writes:
>
> > am i wrong in assuming that Burford always finds a
> > tricky way to apologize imperialism?
>
>This is not my reading of Chris, Mine. I have no doubts about
>Chris' sincerity. He is as concerned as the rest of us, in my
>opinion, of course. What
