Oh, Mr. Proyect, you again shift the isssues around to justify a previous mis-characterization. You mis-construed Mr. Doss's earlier and accused him of having a soft-spot for Russian Orthodox Christianity after he, correctly as far as I have been able to verify, related the rather "unsavory" history of this supposed "nationalist."
Those Marxists who may or may not endorse a particular "national liberation" struggle are not: 1. made Marxists or non-Marxists by their endorsement 2. relieved from correctly characterizing the "leaders" of such a struggle 3.released from providing the linkage, economic, material, class, between that particular struggle and the prospects for revolution. >From what I have been able to find, the Bolsheviks did not consider Chechnyans as a >national minority with a right of succession. If you have other specific information, please provide it. And just as certainly, Stalin brutally displaced the bulk of the Chechnyan people. But arguments by analogy are inherently weak-- entertaining, but weak. Analogy refers to function, not cause or source. And source is everything to Marxists. -----Original Message----- From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jun 23, 2004 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Putin s.artesian wrote: > Clearly Chris Doss is pointing out that Shamil was not exactly a great emancipator
