Unless I'm missing the point and radical reconstruction is being denounced as a "revolution from above." Hopefully that's marginaly more coherent and someone can explain to me the objections to radical reconstruction and the use of "imperialism" to describe Northern motives in the Civil War.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
> You fellows would be more convincing if you would would explain exactly
> what
> these differences are. Simply alleging "there is a difference" barely
> improves on a guessing game.
>
> Doug, I'm not sure that exempting alleged nation-states from an
> anti-imperialist line would even put us in opposition to most of the
> world's
> imperial nastiness. The Nazis also perpetuated quite a bit of it in
> territories they considered German, not always without some historical
> justification.
>
> Bhaskar, I really have no idea what your message is supposed to mean.
> Absolutely none. Would you perhaps care to explain what you're talking
> about? Brevity is a virtue, but I promise not to hold it against you if you
> go over 25 words this time.
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Bhaskar Sunkara
> <bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> And, as I keep saying, in addition to what Doug mentions there is a
> > difference between 1865 and society reliant on slave-labor and 1945.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, as I keep saying, there's a difference between reintegrating a
> > > portion of one's country that lost a civil war and occupying a foreign
> > > country.
> >
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>