Re: [Marxism] re: Milosevic's '89 speec/TO Melvin

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:                   Waistline2@xxxxxxx

> WHAT!!!!!!!
>
> DID YOU SAY DRINK?
>
> Your place or mine?

   The next time you're in Toronto, my place. ;-)

  I expect that you'll reciprocate when I'm in your neck of the woods.


>
> I usually get thrown off the list after a couple drinks to many . . .mostly
> on Friday's  . . .be pissed off with myself on Sunday . . .and then spend 
> about
> a week or two lurking around the list and then . . .subscribe back when no
> one is looking. :-)

lol  :-)


>
> The argument is complex and I swear on the next cycle - next year, I will add
> my two cents on Yugoslavia, the question of its property relations under
> Tito, the reason for the "Third Way" leadership, the meaning of workers 
> control
> and why this is not a social relations of production and what it means to get
> trapped in the middle of a political antagonism between two great states. 
> Maybe
> something on agriculture . . . NOTHING on the national question.

  I look forward to hearing it. For the most part, I enjoy reading your
stuff.

>
> For the record, which side of this debate is supporting imperial invasion?

  Well, Louis P. claims no one. I would have to say that Even and
Michael are the ones defending imperial invasion. Whether or not
they claim to have supported NATO's "intervention" (they probably
did, but I haven't read the specifics of their argument as I don't realy
care for Serb/Milosevic bashers), they are defending the KLA and
Bosnian Islamists. These groups, I believe the evidence strongly
shows, were (and still are to some extent)  doing the bidding of the
imperialists.

best,

DOQ




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism