>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 05/08/99 02:27AM >>>
Chaz wrote:
>And Angela would not be one to search for a vulgar materialist explanation
of the war on Yugoslavia.
wow Chaz, what's gotten under your bonnet? and your point is???
Charles: I'm agreeing with you with a little humor added in. Some people have been complaining about vulgar materialist explanations of the war someone attributes it to capitalist economic motives.
((((((((((((((((((
remind me when I ever used the phrase 'vulgar materialist explanation', or even when I argued that others were doing this? or at least remind anyone you might be having this conversation with about me in the third person...
Chas.: I don't think you used the term. Others have. As I say, I am agreeing with your suggestion to "follow the money trail".
((((((((((((((
you have me confused with someone else, or, we speak very different languages.
Charles: No. I am agreeing with you with a little joke mixed in.
(((((((((((
if you're upset at my use of the term 'money trail': in defaults we are directly talking about money are we not?
Charles: I'm agreeing with you.
(((((((((((((
and, a question about the knock-on effects (specifically re the banks or institutions which have laid out the cash they are unlikely to see returning) is a question for elaboration, not even a question for either an explanation or an analysis (though it would inform one). stuff like this is data -- as is the fact that US arms companies are making money out of the war, but it is not an explanation of why the war is occurring, nor is it an assessment of what the war means for the left or for the working class of various countries.
Charles: Yes, it is good data to show the political economic motive of the bourgeosie in this war. Some have been claiming that such would be a vulgar explanation, for example, when the mines and oil in the area are mentioned as coveted by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Your comment is some refutation of those who see no "vulgar" economic motive in the bourgeoisie waging this war.
((((((((((((((((((((
as for sabre-rattling, I thought it would be a fairly obvious maneuver to reintegrate the growing antagonisms over unpaid wages, but that, may well not be a direct product of defaulting, though it surely means a shift in terms of the relation of the govt agencies to those who haven't been paid. perhaps it is a sign that the govt has decided it is more afraid of Russian workers than international lenders, esp in the lead up to elections, or in the nationalist space amplified by the war -- I can only speculate. but this would be what I'd regard as the point of departure for an analysis, or at least an analysis that would interest me, and by no means exhaustive.
honestly, I have no idea what you might be getting at - I'm too obtuse: if you actually disagree with something, you'll need to be more specific to actually have an argument rather than blow off steam in a rather cryptic way.
Chas.: I think you missed my point because there was a slight irony in my comment. If it doesn't fit Carrol's definition of irony , then it was some slight sarcasm. However, I meant it as agreement with you, the opposite of how you seemed to have taken it. I think the money trail is key to understand the war on Yugoslavia.
Charles Brown