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
Carrol Cox wrote:
>I would give it at best a C+
There's no such thing as a retired professor
Doug
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
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
> >
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] crossposted:
> UNDERSTANDING THE BATTLES OF SEATTLE AND WASHINGTON
> By Dick Platkin and Chuck O'Connell*
Lemme see if I get this right: they're arguing that the anti-WTO and
anti-IMF protests are financed by nationalist bourgeois pig foundations,
organized
ops,his last name is Spector.. Spector is a wsn fellow who forwarded
article..
>From Alan Sceptor:
>The debates on the Fair Trade list over China and Global Exchange reflect
>an
>even deeper debate over the anti-globalization movement: should it be
>anti-capitalist or liberal reform
>From Alan Sceptor:
>The debates on the Fair Trade list over China and Global Exchange reflect
>an
>even deeper debate over the anti-globalization movement: should it be
>anti-capitalist or liberal reformist? The following article attempts to
>dissect and articulate this debate from an ant
