Chris interestling writes.
On the main theoretical difference between Dave and Bob, I am alarmed to
find myself agreeing with both of them. Rather than argue however between
Russia as a developing imperialist state or as a colony, I would like to
suggest a formula I heard at a seminar on
Dave replies...
D
We've had this one out many times Bob. By any measure, Russia is not
imperialist. It is poor, and while not little is it getting smaller.
It is a restored former workers' state whose economy is virtually
collapsed. The methodology is Lenin and Trotsky. Imperialism
Bobs bullits..
Dave writes..
Burford's analysis of Chechyna starts from the proposition that both
OSCE (the European end of the Atlantic alliance) and Russia are
imperialist. George is closer to the truth when he recognises that
Russia is making a concession to imperialism. This is not
I am surprised to read Rob's arguments that Russia is not going to win.
This war is well-supplied logistically and they are already digging in and
are prepared to surround Grozny and shell it throughout a long winter. They
persist in ruling out negotiations.
The one thing that can be said for
At 11:55 19/11/99 -, George wrote:
penetratingly about the contradictions.
However I think the following paragraph gets the balance wrong:
Despite Russia apparent determination to bring Chchnea under its control
Russia has made
concession to be included in a final document to be signed
Burford's analysis of Chechyna starts from the proposition that both
OSCE (the European end of the Atlantic alliance) and Russia are
imperialist. George is closer to the truth when he recognises that
Russia is making a concession to imperialism. This is not only
because Russia is weak and
Dave writes..
Burford's analysis of Chechyna starts from the proposition that both
OSCE (the European end of the Atlantic alliance) and Russia are
imperialist. George is closer to the truth when he recognises that
Russia is making a concession to imperialism. This is not only
because
