Re: AUT: Re:Sylvie and George

[bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rakesh Bhandari)]

Shawn had written:
>>structure of the EZLN." The section which covers implantation is, in
>>fact, hardly a *history* at all - more a quasi-historical patchwork which
>>finally has as its object of study a general "Mexican Maoism" which is,
>>once again, little better than a "type."
To which I replied
>Shawn, I find your criticisms convincing. Thanks

I would like to clarify that what I was agreeing to here was only that more
historical research into the problem of the Maoist roots of the Marcos
phenomenon is justified--not that Sylvie and George were wrong to suggest
on the basis of the evidence that there may be such a connection, which may
indeed be important in understanding the dynamics of the EZLN today. Shawn
has not provided any evidence that Sylive and George are wrong after all.

Best,
Rakesh




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---