Re: Re: on the "anti-globalization" movement (fwd)

2000-04-27 Thread md7148
t-Rosa), and their critique of renegade Kaustky. i have to go. Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:27:23 -0700 From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:18376] Re: Re: on the "anti-globali

Re: Re: Re: on the "anti-globalization" movement(fwd)

2000-04-27 Thread Doug Henwood
Carrol Cox wrote: >I would give it at best a C+ There's no such thing as a retired professor Doug

Re: Re: on the "anti-globalization" movement (fwd)

2000-04-27 Thread Carrol Cox
Dennis R Redmond wrote: [Nothing Intelligible] Dennis, for someone who wants us to believe that you have successfully construed Adorno, you certainly have your troubles with a fairly simple and straightforward post. I haven't decided yet my own response to Platkin & O'Connell but your commenta

Re: Re: on the "anti-globalization" movement (fwd)

2000-04-27 Thread Jim Devine
At 02:12 AM 04/27/2000 -0700, you wrote: > > UNDERSTANDING THE BATTLES OF SEATTLE AND WASHINGTON > > By Dick Platkin and Chuck O'Connell* > > > anti-globalization groups. They are (unknowingly) recycling Kautsky's > > argument when they claim that the WTO, IMF, and World Bank represent a new > >